Société Générale Aktie

Okay. Good morning, everybody. It's my pleasure to be joined here on stage by Leopoldo Alvear, CFO of Societe Generale and member of the Group Executive Committee. Leo joined SocGen in January last year, having previously been, as many of you will know, CFO of Sabadell. Leo, thank you for once again joining us here at the conference.

No, thank you very much.

Today, we have 35 minutes. That will include some time for audience Q&A towards the end. We've got a few questions to run through to begin with. I know sort of we're all -- or you're hosting a highly anticipated Capital Markets Day in September. So perhaps no new medium-term targets today. We'll have to wait until September for those. And the session is being webcast. So a warm welcome to everybody who's also joining us online.

It's been a volatile backdrop, I guess, for the first 6 months of this year. And given everything that's been happening on the macro front, how about we begin with thinking about the overview of how the business is currently performing and how you managed to deal with some of the various ebbs and flows of recent volatility.

Well, thank you very much, Chris. So I mean, it's been a volatile 6 months because actually, when you look at the markets, most of the asset classes have gone back to pre-crisis mode, if you wish, or pre-crisis valuation. Volatility has gone down a lot. I mean it went up, but now it's actually fairly low. And the only -- well, the only between brackets, I think that's off right now, it's energy prices, which are still at $90 to $100. And this is the current situation. And of course, we need to wait and see what happens.

So my point being that it's still a little bit early to see direct impacts nor on asset quality nor on the businesses. When we looked at asset quality in Q1, it was following the same trend that we were seeing in the previous years. So basically, NPLs were stable, actually a little bit down. We had a pretty good cost of risk of 25 basis points, so in the lower part of the range of 25 to 30 that we were aiming for. And actually, that already included an EUR 80 million overlay that we did in the quarter. So it's still early to see those kind of impacts. We would need sustained very high energy prices, which could have an impact in inflation, which could have an impact in supply chain, which could have an impact in monetary policy, GDP, unemployment, real estate to start to see a trend forming in terms of asset quality, especially on the individual side of things. Now you can always have single names or whatever, but we haven't had any of those either. And I'm not aware that there have been many in any case.

So from an asset quality perspective, we're still more or less in the same situation as we were. Again, very early to say because it takes time to generate. From a business standpoint, if I look at the 3 pillars. So again, nothing to report on RPBI. Actually, we did a pretty good quarter. It was 9% up versus the same period in 2025, driven by a good evolution of NII, which is more or less what we expected and guided and a very good evolution or good evolution of fees and with a very good contribution from Bourso for this quarter.

Then if I look at MIBS, basically, the revenues were down on reported, but basically because of disposals of last year. This is where we made the biggest disposals in '25. So if we adjust same perimeter and exchange rate, revenues were up like 3%. So again, nothing that was seen in terms of disruption. And finally, GBIS, which is the one that's more closer to the markets and to short-term evolutions. Here, what we saw is on the market side of things, revenues were down, but at constant FX, they were actually a little bit up. So basically, FX was working on the contrary for us because of Rates Europe.

And then within markets, we have equities, which actually did a record quarter. So it was reasonably good. And then FIC was less conducive. But because of our geographical mix because we're very much hedged to Rates Europe because we don't have commodities and so on and so forth. And then the impact of there, the conditions were less conducive for certain. And then on the CIB part of the business, again, yes, uncertainty is not good for this part of the business. So I think we saw a more muted scenario for I don't know, M&A, ECM and so on and so forth.

So maybe if we pivot to cost, one thing that really stood out to me in the Q1 print was the breadth of the cost outperformance across the group. It was more or less better than expected in every business. How consistent is the cost opportunity that you're seeing across the divisions and the varying approaches that each of those individual business is taking in order to improve efficiency.

So I think this has been a core part of our strategic plan since 2023. So if you recall there, we had basically 3 targets very, very simplistically. The first one was to streamline the company, so to retain only the core businesses. We are 95% there. Second was increasing our CET1 towards above 13%. We did it last year. We already did some extraordinary return to shareholders. So I think that's also ticked. The third one was operational leverage because that's the real underlying issue of the bank. Back in '23, we had a cost to income of -- in the mid-70s space. We are aiming now to be below 60% for this year. We think we're well on track to do so. So that was our key focus and criteria. And within the cost to income because it's obviously the cost side of things.

So I think certainly, we're doing -- we've been doing a lot of efforts on this front in the last 3 years. We're obviously doing this year. What are we doing here is there's a variety of situations and levers. Basically, the IT front is very important, both on the external expense and on the internal expense. On the external, we have reduced very, very significantly the amount of providers we work with from the many hundreds to the mid-single digit. And of course, this is something that is already bearing results, but it will be so during the course of the coming years because most of this comes through amortization and therefore, it's not something that you see in 2 quarters, but it's more something that you see over the course of many years.

And on the internal side of things, we're also trying to reduce the complexity of the IT landscape. So we have plans to basically decromize thousands of apps. Again, this is that's not going to be seen only in 2 quarters, but it's more of a long-term project, which will envisage 3, 4 years to be completed, and we will see returns out of that over the course of this period. And also, I think perhaps this is one of the most -- or the clear examples of the usage of AI today. We're improving the productivity of the coding of the site. So that's very clear. On the IT, and we are doing -- we did it last year. We're doing it this year. We're going to see returns coming in the coming years.

We're also -- as you know, when we disclosed our CMD and the target for a 60% cost to income in '23, we said we needed EUR 1 billion, to invest EUR 1 billion cost to achieve that cost to income. The vast majority of that has been spent through the course of mostly '24 and also '25. So there's only a little bit left. We booked this in the OpEx line. So again, we're going to have a step down here because the amount of CTA that we're going to book this year, just like we saw, I think, in Q1, we had a difference of EUR 60 million coming from this, right? So we're going to see this steadily through the quarters.

We're also working on the reduction of the structure of the group. So when you look at our URD back in 2023, we were like 126,000 employees. Now we're 109,000. We already disclosed that we are reducing our FTEs in France by 1,800 people in the coming 2 years. So this is a constant review of the structure that we have. And then we launched a program last year, which again is going to last for a number of years, very, very, very detailed initiatives. We have over 4,000 initiatives, some of them are very small, some bigger, which are to be executed over the course of the coming years.

So all of this to say that the focus of the management on the operational leverage obviously is not finished this year, and we'll go forward because 60% cost to income is a target that we were aiming to achieve for this year, but it's a target that we need to keep on working on, on the coming years. And of course, cost to income. So it's a matter of income, but it's a matter of cost also. If we look at the cost structure stand-alone, I mean there's this so many ways that you can look at this in order to compare yourself with the world. You can look at costs on total assets, but probably you will see it will not be so comparable depending on the peer you compare to. And I like a little bit more cost. It's not perfect, but a little bit more cost on RWAs.

And when I look at our cost base here, we're still at 4.4% of RWAs, right? And some of the best peers in the industry are probably more in the 3.5% space, right? So certainly, we need to keep on focusing and working on this regard for the coming years and will be one of the pillars certainly of the CMD in September.

Very clear. You referenced earlier the decision to get to 13% CET1. You've been there for some time as of last year. How comfortable are you that, that remains the right level for the group? And I guess, what are the trade-offs? What are the pros and cons of operating at that level versus a higher level or a lower level.

That's a good question, theoretical one, but a good one. So I think we decided to increase our CET1 back in 2023. We were operating with 12%, and we wanted to raise it to 13% basically to discourage any potential risk of dilution of the shares. So it was a management -- completely a management decision. Since then, we were aiming to achieve this target by the end of this year. We were able to achieve it way before, so basically probably almost 2 years in advance because of 2 reasons.

So we were able to execute most of the divestment program earlier and probably in the higher range of the expectations that we had. And second, because we were very disciplined in capital allocation, also because we were transforming many of our businesses. So we were above the 13% threshold last year, and we were very clear in this regard. The 13% already includes a management buffer. So we don't want to build a buffer on top of the buffer. So basically, everything in excess of 13%. We believe this is capital that needs to be used either organically or inorganically or with return to shareholders who are the owners of the capital at the end of the day. We are just the stewardships of the capital.

I think we proved this last year, we already executed 2 share buybacks for a total of EUR 2 billion in 2025 because the Board decided that the best usage for that capital was to be returned to the capital. We didn't find another usage of capital, which could equal or surpass the benefit for shareholders of giving it back. Now this year, the only thing that we disclosed in Q4 is that this is not something that we're going to do on an accounting basis on a quarterly basis. So we think this is strategic, the usage of excess capital.

So we will be coming back to the market with the Board's decision in Q2. But the rationale has not changed. So basically, in order to see where we deploy the excess capital, we need to see whether we have a better return, an accretive better return organically, which, of course, there are possibilities to do so, but we don't want to grow organically by changing our risk profile. So that's very important. And that, for example, this year, we're aiming to increase RWAs by 2%, and we're a large bank, so we could do -- we could grow faster, but it probably would take us to the wrong situation.

We can use the capital in inorganic approach if we find something that's very clear strategically and financially. And if not, the capital will be returned to shareholders. As per the level itself is 13% the right number. So I think -- I mean, it's true. It's absolutely true that if I look back at 2023 and you look at today, the group is quite different. So the return on tangible equity has basically doubled since 2023. So it's a different -- and of course, the pre-provision profit, which has increased by 50%. So basically, we have now -- we're now in a different situation. We have much more capital. We have a more robust balance sheet. We have a more robust P&L, which is generating more profits every year. So that could take care of unexpected losses down the road.

But we also need to look at where the market is. And since we went for 13%, I think the overall of the market has gone higher, I mean, higher than where it was. So some of our peers, for example, have moved to 13% just recently. So I think we need to take into the context the overall framework. In our side, yes, our situation has improved since 2023. The overall, the market has moved, and we need to take that into account. So for the time being, I think we're comfortable with the 13%.

Good. And then you mentioned actually in earlier comments, the performance in the businesses in the first quarter, French retail, in particular, NII was up double digit. That was funding costs and back book repricing. But how much of this NII momentum that you're seeing in the French business today is structural versus this kind of timing-related tailwinds? And should we expect the sort of double-digit growth rates that we're seeing in French retail NII to normalize as we move through the rest of 2026.

So indeed, we have had a good quarter. Our NII went up more or -- if I exclude PEL/CEL which is a very technical issue, which is a product that needs to be repriced every Q1. So it's a little bit not recurrent. It went up 10% basically year-on-year. And the moving parts behind these are basically the ones that we've been discussing with the market. So again, if we simplify, it's basically cost of funding, and that's moving by the mix of term and site, which I think has stabilized over the last 3 quarters or so, plus the cost of funding, which obviously is coming down as we reprice the deposits that we had in the past. So that's the major lever, if you wish.

Second one, it's the repricing of the long-term assets. So that's much -- it's slower. It's good, but it's lower. So we're pricing the mortgages, but that takes 8, 9 years. And then the third lever would be the volumes. The volumes are relatively muted. So this all gets into places where we can still sustain that our view here is that our NII should be progressing not only in the coming quarters, but all things being equal, of course, if things change, it will be a different circumstance. But over the course of the coming years because these levers should be working in the right direction over the course of the coming years. We've guided for a muted increase of our NII going forward. And I think on this regard, at this point, nothing has changed. So that we stick to that kind of follow-up.

And on BoursoBank, clearly saw an improvement in profitability in the first quarter. How should we think about the balance there between the search for growth and the search for profitability. What's the right sort of steady state in terms of client acquisition expense and the returns profile for BoursoBank within the broader division?

So BoursoBank, I think we need to look at it within the scope of the CMD. So basically, out of the CMD, we had targets for the group and then we have targets for specific business units, right? And in the case of BoursoBank, we had 2 targets. The first one was to achieve 8 million customers, and we achieved that basically last year, so ahead of schedule again. The second one was to deliver a net income of EUR 300 million in 2026. So we debated internally significantly whether we wanted to apply or reach both targets or keep on growing the assets because we believe that the asset is a growth asset. I mean, for certain, right? This is, in my view, it's a very, very good asset that the group has for a number of reasons. I think we just showed in Q1 that it can be very profitable.

We made EUR 92 million in the quarter with RONE which is in the mid-60s space, which is extremely high. Why? Two reasons basically. Again, simplifying. The first one is that we have 9 million customers, almost 9 million customers and 1,100 employees. So basically, have joking that's what AI -- we could dream with AI. It's BoursoBank basically today. The second one is because of the profile of the customers that we have. We are more leveraged on liabilities than assets, right? So basically, we are consuming less RWAs. So it's a very, very profitable asset, which, in my opinion, has the potential to disrupt the French retail environment because of these very small, very contained cost base because it's important to mention that we've doubled the customers in 4 years, but the workforce has gone from 950 people to 1,100 people. So basically, the operational leverage is huge on that regard.

So given that we understand that this is a growth asset and we need to keep on managing it that way, we came to the conclusion that it's very important to show the market the commitment of the management with all the targets that we disclosed. So we want to comply and achieve all of the targets that we were aiming to achieve back in 2023, and one of them is Bourso. So for this year, we've shown the profitability, and that comes against a smaller or lower growth of clients, which I think also gives the management an opportunity this year to focus on the profitability of the clients as the vintages roll over because basically, the evolution of profits of BoursoBank will be driven by the NII evolution, and that's the cross-selling of products over the course of vintages for those clients and also on the fee line.

So I think that's one opportunity instead of solely focusing or mostly focusing on the growth, focusing also on the profitability of the client. And also, we have the opportunity to study other forms of growing our cost base. But then again, for the future, I think the asset is very good for -- if I were to simplify, what do you need for retail, oversimplifying. So you need to be able to provide all the products that clients need. Bourso is offering right now with 40, 50 products. So that would entail probably 99% of normal clients need.

The second thing you need to do is to be able to offer those products competitively. So basically at good prices, again, 1,100 employees, so we can be as competitive as anyone else or more. You need to have a very good relationship with your clients. So basically to serve him well, #1 NPS over the last few years. And then you need a fourth thing, which is the client demand, right? So you may have the best product, you may have the best mortgage, but if your client is a 25-year older, you need to keep him engaged or her until have the need for this kind of mortgage.

So basically, the growth of revenues cannot be done in retail in 2 quarters. It needs years of engaging because some products cannot be sold even if you are very good and you have the best product, you need the client needs. So our duty is to keep those clients engaged. And for me, a very good proof of that is the churn rate. So basically, we've been growing clients in the high-teens space over the last -- sustainably over the last few years. and the churn rate, the amount of clients that we lose every year, it's at 4%. So this means that we are engaging those clients in -- and BoursoBank is becoming more and more important for them.

So for all of these reasons, we are firm believers that this is a growth asset. And certainly, we will keep on growing the asset going forward. Now it will be a different road. So we will sustain a certain level of profitability, which is accretive to the group, and we will reinvest the rest of that profitability to grow the asset further. And of course, in September, I'm sure we will spend some time explaining the next leg of BoursoBank because I think it's a very important one for the group.

Well, I like that sound by the 60% RONE for AI-powered cost liability income business is quite compelling.

It isn't the headline I was looking for, but...

So markets, you mentioned earlier, there was a big disconnect in the first quarter between the performance in equities, which was actually very strong versus your performance in FIC, which is a little bit weaker. How much of that performance is purely cyclical, some of the dynamics you mentioned given the euro rates heavy mix of the business. Or on the other hand, do you see there being a need to rebalance the business towards a sort of broader set of revenue streams in order to increase resilience if we continue to move through these kind of consistent episodes of volatility.

So again, I mean, I think the strategy that we have with the markets, I think, changed back in 2021. Slawomir was the head of GBIS at the time. And we decided to reduce our exposure to the most volatile products, right? So it was a conscious decision by the Board and by the management to reduce the exposure to, for example, very dividend-driven products, which were more volatile and so on and so forth. And we had the bad experience back in 2020 when we had the ban on dividends in Europe. So as a matter of fact, since then, we've reduced the use of RWAs by 20% and the use of the stress test by 60%, 70%. So quite significantly.

So basically, we wanted to make a business which was robust, less volatile and where we could secure 2 things. On the one hand, the bottom part of the range. On the second hand, the profitability of the business, right? And of course, we are aware that we're leaving money on the table because we have exited some of the businesses or some of the products that were more volatile and therefore, riskier and where you can have higher profits in the good part of the cycle, but probably you're going to have some more losses on the wrong side of the cycle, right? Since then, and I think this is very important to frame the overall of the business, and then I'll get into the details of why we're different, right?

But since then, I think in 2020 or 2021, the middle -- we always give a range. This is one of the guidances that we give for the group, a range of the revenue that we're expecting from the markets business. Back in 2020, 2021, the middle of the range was EUR 4.5 billion. This year, it's EUR 5.1 billion to 5.7 billion. And we have been for -- this will be the fifth year in a row, having revenues above EUR 5 billion, right? So basically, we've tried to build up the bottom part of the range while not increasing the range going forward. And I think this is going to be the strategy going forward. So I would not expect a huge range out of our CMD, right?

And on top of that, we are very much focused on the profitability of the business. So on the margins. And when I look at the RWA or the NBI per RWA, we compare fairly well in most of all of our products with the market. And then we have different mixes, and I'll get to that in a minute. And also, we've been working pretty hard on the cost base. So the RONE for this business in Q1 was 25%, close to 25%. The RONE over the last 5 years has never been below 15%. So basically, we are trying to improve the RONE as we improve the bottom part of that range. So that's the overall strategy on the business, profitability and less volatile.

Now if we get into the details of equities and FIC, equities had a good quarter. It was a record quarter for us actually. It was -- the revenues were up 5% or 10% with constant FX, if you wish. So it was good. We have a less conducive quarter in FIC, where FIC was down 18% or 15% at constant FX. Why is this evolution? Basically, there's 2 reasons. The first one is geographically. So we have 25%, 30% of our revenues are in the U.S., which obviously had a much more conducive market conditions, and the rest are basically or mostly in Europe. So that's a big difference.

If I look at the markets business in the U.S. or a number in Q1, in dollars, we were 24% up. So that compares fairly well to -- or in line or well with other peers. But of course, in Europe, things were more muted. We have done -- and so that's geographically. And then by products, in equities, we have less exposure to prime brokerage or cash equities, which are activities that we're trying to grow, and that's why we had a joint venture with Bernstein, and we hope that this -- sorry, allows us to grow in this business going forward. But again, I wouldn't expect the hockey stick. So we want to grow it steadily.

And then on the fixed side of things, we are very much hedged to Rates Europe, which has not been conducive over the course of the coming -- of the last 2 quarters. And we have a big, big part of our mix. It's driven by that part of the business. And also when comparing to other peers, it's fair to take into account that we exited the commodities business back in 2019. So when I look at Q1, for example, some U.S. peers had a good quarter in FIC, but it was driven by the commodities business, which we didn't have. So it's basically geography and business and product line.

And maybe pivoting to Ayvens. What are the latest views or walk us through your latest views on Ayvens, particularly in the context of the normalization in used car prices that we're seeing, but also it was a choppy year in terms of performance in 2025.

Sure. So again, here, I'll go back to our targets for CMD. So basically, for Ayvens, we had, again, if I simplify, 2 targets for this year to be able to reach a return on tangible equity between 13% and 15%. We were at 13.9% in Q1. So basically, we're there. And second one was to have cost to income without the used car sales because that brings a lot of volatility in the 52% space. And I think we were at 54% in Q1, okay? So for this year, the company is completely focused on basically the last part of the integration of LeasePlan and ALD, which -- the migration of the 2, 3 last platforms that we have this year. Some of them have already occurred, have already happened and delivering on the financial targets. So that's basically what we're doing for this year.

Now when I look at the evolution of the company, ROTE is there, cost to income is getting there. In 2024, we made a decision to pull the brakes on the production. That's probably the one thing that we're -- so one of the targets that we were aiming for in '23 that we're not going to do. So we're going to deliver on the financials, but in a different way. And we pulled the brakes on the production for 2 reasons. The first one is that the margins were very, very, very constrained. And we thought we had to protect margins, and therefore, we didn't have to grow so much. Second one and the biggest one probably was the uncertainty on the residual value of EVs.

Now in hindsight, I was not here, so I can look -- it's very easy always to look at the past. I think it was -- they were the right decisions. So on the one hand, our margins are still growing. In Q1, I think we had -- the margins of new cars were -- I think it was 587, if I recall correctly, so around 25 basis points higher than Q1 '25, so in the right direction. And that's not happening everywhere in the sector. So I think it was the right decision. And then the uncertainty with regards to the new EVs that you're selling, I think it's coming down. Now of course, the used car sales are coming down significantly because they were -- they started at a place where it was not natural. So the used car sales for average previous to COVID, where this disruption happened, was more in the EUR 100 space, right?

Now in COVID, the industry got to EUR 3,000. So since then, because of the supply chain and so on and so forth. So since then, we've seen a natural decrease or normalization of those margins. So in Q1, I think the average used car sale was around EUR 470 per car, which is within the range that we guided the market with, which was to be between EUR 600 and EUR 200 for the year. But it's the normal normalization of the evolution of this part of the business. So I think things are going more or less as expected. As I said, this year, very focused on finishing the integrations and delivering on the financial targets.

From next year onwards, I think this is an asset which is going to be in the mid-teens space in terms of return on tangible equity. So we're probably the biggest player in their space. And the uncertainty with regards to new EVs, which, of course, the demand is only going up and therefore has an impact on the mix. Well, I think it's coming down. Is it finished? Probably not yet, but I think we're getting closer to a place where we can sort to print those kind of vehicles without expecting a loss down the road. And therefore, I'm not sure if it's going to be in '27, we will see it out of the CMD, but this is an asset where, at least from a financial standpoint, provided that we are comfortable with the residual value risk, right? I would put capital to work because it will be accretive to the group.

Very clear. My last question before opening up for audience Q&A. The international retail businesses in Central and Eastern Europe, they're sort of a little bit hidden gems within SocGen. What do those businesses bring to the group? And where do you find synergies between those businesses and the operations in the rest of the group?

Sure. So I think we have 2 retail franchises in the Czech Republic, KB and in Romania, BRD. Both of them are -- I mean, they're core to the group for a number of reasons. We like the countries. We like the geographies. They're growing and they're linked to the EU, either because of flows, either because of the Czech Republic being very close to the German economy. The economies are growing. The demand for loans are growing. Both are doing like 7% to 10% increase in loans, which is natural increase of demand coming from the economy. They are sizable players. So basically, they're #3, #5 in their countries. They are profitable.

So basically, the ROTEs in these businesses are in the high teens space, high teens to 20%. They have quite a lot of capital, again, in the high teens to 20%. Their asset quality is controlled. They bring a very, very atomized deposit base to the group. And so basically, we are comfortable with both franchises and then they have synergies with the group, right? And what kind of synergies do they have with the group? So basically, on the revenue side of things. So we -- simplistically, we sell our products to their clients, so basically CIB and markets business to their corporate clients. And then -- but not only that, we also have synergies on the cost side of things, for example, in the IT space, right? So this is basically the reason why these 2 franchises are -- remain part of the group because we think they are completely core.

Okay. Any questions from the audience? Mark in the corner, if you could just wait for the microphone, Mark, so we can -- the people on the line will be able to hear your question.

Yes. Mark from BDL. I just had a question on SRTs because it seems like the regulatory tone on those instruments has turned slightly negative over the last 6 to 9 months. And I just wonder if you share that impression that I have. And also, if you can remind us the role that SRTs have played in reducing your risk-weighted assets and what's included in the medium-term plan in terms of the benefits from SRTs.

Of course, thank you. So basically, I mean, SRTs for me are a very interesting tool within the toolbox, right? So we've never leveraged too much on SRTs. I don't think we are one of the players that are using SRTs the most. And we see it more from a risk standpoint. So basically, to use SRTs to cover risks that we no longer want in the balance sheet or much more often risk, we want to down or decrease our risk in a certain sector because we're very strong in that sector, and we keep on -- we want to keep on producing originating loans, and we are closer to the limits that -- internal limits that we have. So we offset part of that through SRTs, and therefore, we can keep on originating on the sector.

But as I said, it's a tool that we use more from a risk standpoint and from a capital generation standpoint. We're not using SRTs to retribute excess capital, if you want me to put it that way. I mean as every -- each and every SRT transaction needs to be approved independently by the ECB. So that's the way this has been working in the last few years, and there has been no change in that regard. So my perception, despite the noise that we can hear in the market, things have not changed in the -- on the ground. So I'm not aware that in any way, shape or form, we have seen delays in the transaction at this point.

And actually, the other question could be, is there appetite in the market given the volatility that we have in the market and there is. So I haven't seen anything on that regard that would derail significantly the focus or the aim that we have out of this tool. And again, is this going to be a part of our next leg? Yes, as it has been in the past. So again, and I would like to reinforce the message, it's another tool within the toolbox that we can use to reduce risks where we want to keep on originating or things like that.

Very clear. Any more? Okay. Well, I think with that, that's a great note on which to end. Leo, thanks again very much for your time.

Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to welcome you to the CNIT Center. This is the 11th meeting that I've chaired, and it's also my last, right. And for 11 years as the first independent Chairman of Societe Generale and with the support of the Board of Directors, we've been able to maintain the benefits of the governance of the very highest standards, which has enabled us to weather crisis, of which there were many serious sanctions, COVID, Russian crisis. We also managed to renew the company by successfully managing the leadership transition from [indiscernible] to Slavomir Krupa, we managed to define and implement in 2023, a strategic review that has now enabled Societe Generale to rejoin the rights of Europe's leading banks.

Now at the end of this term of office, the 2025 performance is historic, the result of the transformation initiated 3 years ago. The slide on the value creation from 2015 to the date of of my appointment as Chairman speaks for itself, and I think illustrates the performance of recent years. Although it should not be misleading, right, there remains much to be done to consolidate the reorganization of our group. And Mr. Krupa will certainly outline the main thrust of our thinking for the future, which is set against a backdrop of profound change, a macroeconomic and geopolitical environment in crisis and caught with uncertainty, a technological revolution driven by AI [indiscernible] in how bank customers use their services, the success of [indiscernible] bank being one of the symbols of this, the emergence of crypto assets and stablecoins with Forge. We are one of the key players by huge global financing [indiscernible] particularly for the energy transition. So the list of all the re-struction is a long one, right? Now to conclude this brief introduction, I must pay tribute on behalf of the Board of Directors and on behalf of you all to the performance of the bank staff and management. Without them, none of this would be possible.

Joining me on stage to speak with you Slavomir Krupa, who is CEO; and Pierre Palmieri, who is the Deputy CEO. Now during our meeting, we'll have an update on the results by our CFO, Leopoldo Trenor. We'll have an update on strategy by our CEO, Slavomir Krupa. We'll have a specific agenda item on CSR and climate change -- this by Pierre Palmieri have an update on the corporate governance, this by myself. We'll have an update on remuneration by Annette Messemer, who is Chair of the Remuneration Committee, and we'll have the discussion followed by her on the resolutions, right?

Now before we proceed to formalities, so our quorum is at 93% -- [indiscernible] for 30,575 shareholders. Patrick [indiscernible], who did the supervision of '26 general assemblies told me this is a record-breaking call. So with this, we may now proceed to the appointment of the officers of our Annual General Meeting. The 2 shareholders who have accepted the rules and who either as proxies hold the largest number of votes have been appointed as scrutineers, [indiscernible] representing BNP Paribas Asset Management and Mr. [indiscernible] representing Amundi.

I'd like to thank the for their agreement and propose that as Secretary of the Board of Directors, we appoint Patrick Suet right? Sorry, He is secretary of the board and he will be appointed Secretary to the meeting. He's been a Secretary of the Board since 2010. And by the way, this is his last general assembly, and I'd like to thank him for his work. I also would like to remind you that we have in detail all the documents on our line and made available to [indiscernible]. Our proceedings have been broadcast live on the Internet and will be available to view on demand on our website.

Now as we do every year, we conducted a survey of shareholders in preparation for this Annual General Meeting and 4,040 individual shareholders responded. And as it is the case every year, the survey shows that your primary interest lies in the group's strategy, results and financial structure as well as in the dividend and distribution policy. These are followed by executive remuneration, risk management as well as the group's innovation and digital transformation. Now all of these topics will be discussed today, and you will have the opportunity to revisit them during the debate. To ensure this session run smoothly, I would like to inform you that staff members are stationed at the entrance to answer any questions you may have. I would also like to point out that whilst this meeting is being streamed online, we are committed to respecting each and every one of you by not broadcasting images of those attending the general meeting, including those asking questions.

Right. Ladies and gentlemen, with this, I would like to move to the next item, and I'll ask Leopoldo Trenor to join us on board for the financial results. So he will be speaking in English, but we will have a translation into English for those who need this.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be here with you once again to present the group's performance. I would like to take you through our 2025 results, followed by our ambition for 2026 before concluding with our first quarter 2026 performance published on the 30th of April last year.

Now let me continue in English, please. As you can see on the slide, 2025 was another year of strong achievements across all key metrics with all 2025 targets achieved or exceeded. In details, our revenues were up by almost 7%, excluding disposals, more than double our target of above 3% driven by a strong performance across all our businesses. We had a strong increase in the net interest income in French retail and record high assets under management, both in Life Insurance and Private Banking activities. Wholesale Bank continued to grow sharply, gaining 1.9 million new clients, bringing its total to close to EUR 9 million by the end of 2025. Global Banking and Investor Solutions had a record year in terms of revenues, exceeding the EUR 10 billion mark, driven by a strong performance in both Global Markets and Banking & Advisory.

International Retail Banking continued to deliver robust commercial performance, especially [ KB and BRD ], our retail banking franchises in the Czech Republic and Romania, with a successful optimization and continued digitalization of the respective distribution networks. [ Evans ] continued to steadily enhance its margins throughout 2025, thanks to the strategic decision to focus on profitability and key risk management. Furthermore, we maintained strict discipline in cost monitoring and risk management. On one hand, our costs are down minus 2% compared to 2024, excluding disposals, better than our 2025 target of more than minus 1% and allowing us to reach a cost-to-income ratio of 63.6% for the year. This is more than 5 percentage points of improvement over the previous year and improving our 2025 target of a cost-to-income ratio below 65%. This evolution demonstrates our absolute commitment to reduce structurally our cost base.

On the other hand, cost of risk for the year was 26 basis points at the lower end of our guidance range, reflecting the high quality of our loan origination as well as the diversification and strength of our risk management. Overall, this translated into a significant improvement in profitability with our ROTE reaching 10.2% for the year, up 3.3 percentage points versus 2024 and comfortably above our 2025 target of around 9%. Finally, these earnings allowed us to further strengthen our capital by around 20 basis points over the year to reach a CET1 ratio of 13.5% after Basel IV implementation, a strong level, especially taking into account that we executed in 2025, our first ever extraordinary distributions in the form of 2 additional share buybacks for a total amount of EUR 2 billion.

Our 2026 targets reflect our continued focus on growth, operating leverage and sound risk management. The execution of our road map resulted in an upgrade of our return on tangible equity target to more than 10% for the year versus the one set at the CMD back in 2023 of a range of 9% to 10%. In details, for 2026, we expect a revenue growth above 2% versus '25 on a reported basis, a further net cost decrease of around minus 3% versus 2025, again on a reported basis, a cost-to-income ratio below 60% a cost of risk within the 25 to 30 basis points range. And last, CET1 ratio above 13% throughout the year.

At business level, all our CMD financial targets for 2026 are confirmed. Looking in details, [indiscernible] Bank will fuel 2026 profitability, contributing more than EUR 300 million to the group's net income. In addition, the Global Markets revenue target is adjusted for the consolidation of Bernstein U.S. and is now estimated between EUR 5.1 billion and EUR 5.7 billion for 2026. On costs, the objective to further enhance operational efficiency remains consistent across all businesses. Accordingly, we confirm the cost-to-income ratio targets in 2026 for each business line with a cost-to-income ratio below 60% in French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance, a cost-to-income ratio below 65% in Global Banking and Investor Solutions, a cost-to-income ratio below 55% in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services, including a cost-to-income ratio of around 52% at [indiscernible] level, excluding used car sales results and other nonrecurrent items.

To conclude, let's move on to our Q1 '26 financial results. These results demonstrate the consistency of our execution and confirm that we're well on track to meet our 2026 targets. We reported a group net income of EUR 1.7 billion, up 5.5% versus Q1 2025. Consistent with previous quarters, these results demonstrate the sustainable improvement of our performance, both commercially and financially across our businesses. Revenues were up 0.3% despite negative impacts from FX and disposals completed in Q1 '25. While at constant perimeter and exchange rate, the evolution was 4.4%. Costs are down 6% compared to Q1 '25, better than our annual target of a cost reduction of around minus 3% and down 2.6% compared to Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

As a result, the group achieved a cost-to-income ratio of 60.9% or 57.6% when linearizing IFRIC 21 taxes, which are yearly taxes fully paid in Q1 each year. This is in line with our end of year target of a cost-to-income ratio below 60%. At the same time, the group continues to apply a rigorous risk management observable through a low cost of risk at 25 basis points at the low end of our range of 25 to 30 basis points, reflecting our strong asset quality in a complex and uncertain environment. All of this resulted in an improvement of our return on tangible equity to 11.7%, well ahead of our end of the year guidance of more than 10%. Finally, we maintained a strong capital position with a CET1 ratio of 13.5% at the end of Q1 '26.

So to conclude, our results confirm our group's solid fundamentals with performance improving quarter-on-quarter, which reinforces our confidence in achieving our 2026 targets. Furthermore, thanks to a strong capital position and rigorous risk management, we approach the current environment with confidence. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you, Leopoldo. I now give the floor to Guillaume [indiscernible] on behalf of the Board of Statutory Auditors.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, hello in the name of KMPG and PwC. I am happy to present the 10 reports that we have established, which have been set out to you in the bundle of documents. So we have 2 reports on accounts, 2 reports on information of sustainability, special reports and 2 reports on various operations on share distributions.

Now regarding the results, consolidated accounts for 2025. Let me remind you that [indiscernible] is about ensuring that these results have been, let's say, achieved without [indiscernible]. And we can without [indiscernible] approve these results. And obviously, you will be approving these results in the first and second resolution [indiscernible] . We also have a presentation on a certain number of works that we bear a certain number of risks. We call these the key items of the audit. We have 9 of them regarding the financials for 2025. 5 of these items are about the consolidated accounts and the [ key ] accounts. So we have a certain number of credits to clients, financials additions to actually [indiscernible] the legal and tax risks the risk related to outstanding in France, number of IT-related controls linked to market operations. 3 key items are about the consolidated accounts and namely regarding the payments activities in car rentals, the variable commissions is also and the adjust hedging of interest rates, namely specifically for Retail Banking in France.

And finally, regarding the yearly results for [indiscernible] participations in companies. We have a number of other aspects that we cover in this report and we submit to the Audit Committee a detailed report regarding these, we do not have any specific observations regarding the internal management report. And we do these reports taking into account the European [indiscernible].

Societe Generale has published a certain number of information in their yearly reports that fit within the CSRD European directive. Now within our reports and the idea being to provide you with a limited insurance, we present you with the conclusion of our work. And we can, therefore, say that we do not see any mistakes or errors regarding the compliance to the various rules and regulations of the information that has been published.

Regarding the special report on set number of regulated conventions, which is the fourth resolution, we can inform you that no resolution has been submitted to us and no resolution already approved by this assembly has [indiscernible] the question.

Regarding the 6 reports on certain number of capital-related operations and share distributions. Some are being submitted to you under resolutions 19 to 23. These reports are to do with a certain number of share distributions and bond issuance and increase -- capital increase for a certain number of subscription mechanisms. For each of these reports, we have no specific observation to mention. I would like to mention also that we obviously could not issue or give any opinion regarding the reports as the [indiscernible have not been submitted to us.

We also have 2 reports on authorizations which have been submitted to you for approval for the distribution of free shares related to performance. In our report, we did not mention any information about the reports provided to us by the Board. This will be submitted to you in Resolutions 24 and 25.

And finally, regarding the authorization that you will be suggested to you to approve through management. So this is Resolution 26. We have no observation to submit to you.

Mr. Chairman, with this, I would like to thank you for the trust you put in us, and we are very happy to continue working with you.

Well, thank you for Mr. [indiscernible]. And we now give the floor to Slavomir Krupa, who is our Chief Executive Officer, so that he may provide an update on the implementation of the strategy defined at the end of 2023, which, by the way, runs until 2026 as well as the preparations for the new strategic plan, which is due to be presented on the 21st of September 2026. But first of all, a short video.

[Presentation]

Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, in May 2023, 3 years ago, you entrusted me with the responsibility of leading our group as Chief Executive Officer. And with your trust and with the support of the Board, I would like to thank everyone for the work you have done. We have opened a new era of our history. Starting with a clear diagnostic, we have come up with a plan. We have been able to present it in a very transparent way in September.

In May 2024, 2025, I told you that we have been able to do exactly what we wanted to do without deviating from our strategy at all. And I also told you that we would be trying to reach our objectives right up until the end of 2026. So today, I wanted to say the same thing to you. For the second year, we have exceeded in 2025, all of the objectives that we had set for ourselves. And this is based on a solid foundation for our bank, rebuilding the foundations of our group. So we have a good liquidity situation, organic growth, better efficiency, managed risk and better profitability, everything that we needed to do to be able to continue to exist in a sustainable way and also to finance this economy for our clients. This is a very difficult step for us, transforming our business, which has been something that has been very difficult to do, but necessary to be able to have better credibility. And this is also important for the future of our bank. So we have to work very carefully. We have to be very methodical -- we need to have in our minds, the interest of shareholders, our employees and all of the stakeholders.

We have to transform our culture, our process and the organization of our work. This is something that we are doing now, and it is very demanding. We have followed three principles. So sustainable growth with a good portfolio profitability, thanks to a more efficient portfolio. So first of all, so a strong bank is one that is something that is based on a strong solid foundation. Capital in our industry is a natural resource. It is -- capital allows us to have margin maneuver through economic cycles and to allow us to sustain our growth and our resilience. We are at 13% of equity. We have -- and this is a fundamental decision. This is a decision that we made in 2023 in a major undertaking. We, therefore, increased our capital base by more than EUR 4 billion, and we achieved this by utilizing all available levers and almost 2 years ahead of schedule. And this allowed us to do as of 2025 to look at our distribution policy and begin distributing in a rational way, a considered matter a portion of our capital surplus to shareholders.

Now sustainable growth. We simplified our portfolio, activities portfolio in a very responsible way. And we have done this respecting the company, the customers and for our group. We have been able to focus on transforming our core businesses we are stronger, so we are most needed and where we create the most value sustainably. For our market activities, we have also invested in the group's net [indiscernible]. For our market, we have -- so for our financing and advisory activity, we have launched a new model to improve our balance sheet efficiency in order to strategically increase the capacity to originate financing for our clients and distribute to investors. And this allow us to help our clients in their major transitions and energy and technology transition. So -- and this has allowed us to increase by 50% since 2023, the amounts that we have been able to pay out to clients.

Now with the creation of [indiscernible], which manages a fleet of nearly 3.5 million vehicles throughout the world, we have been able to consolidate the foundations of a global leader in this sector. I would like to add that [indiscernible] through the gradual electrification of its vehicle fleet is making a real contribution on a scale befitting leader to the decarbonization of mobility with 1/3 of the vehicles in its fleet being electric. And we have gone on the offensive in Retail Banking, Insurance and Private Banking in 2023 with [indiscernible] Bank, of course, a fully fledged bank, a leader in online banking and approaching roughly EUR 80 billion in assets under management and an average of around EUR 9 million per customer. So this bank has remained profitable for the third year running, demonstrating both the strength and sustainability of its model.

Now in traditional banking [indiscernible] is back in [indiscernible] serving its customers across all key product lines, starting with mortgages and leading the way in savings with rate of inflows into life insurance and offering very attractive returns to customers and leading positions as a wealth management bank in France. And we are also building, let's say, the future of this activity. Now our profitability, well, profitability, obviously, is very important for us to continue what we do. And this is the only source in terms of our investment ability. Now obviously, we try to work with a lot of discipline and if I may say, unprecedented discipline for our group, right, from a structured and consistent approach to thoroughly review our cost base, achieving a 10% reduction in cost compared to 2024 and 2025, excluding assets disposals, which is better than the annual target of 1%. And we thereby improved our operating leverage by more than 10 percentage points compared to 2023.

And we also have a very ambitious target for 2026 to reduce operating [indiscernible] by 3%. Now -- when it comes to operational efficiency, we are very far from where we want to be. Our performances are very far from our European peers. And we are very much decided as on day 1 to continue pushing down this way. And we are going to work on this transition, ensuring that we all stick together and that we all take up the various challenges that come our way. We have achieved many, many good results and actually the best in our history in 2025, right? Growth across all business lines and targets exceeded in every respect, right, even though we had to proceed with a [indiscernible] number of disposals. Our reported profitability has been -- has reached 10%. It's much better than the average from 2018 to 2022. And the ability to achieve all these objectives at the same time is, I believe, the main feat of our performance since 2023.

We, I believe, brought trust back to the market, investors, to you, shareholders, because without your trust, there is no future, no sustainable future for a company our size. And if we look at the share price evolution, well, I think this just goes to show that we have managed to bring back trust to the company. The cost of capital is at a historically low level for Societe Generale. In 3 years, we have multiplied by [indiscernible] of the company. And I mean, we are breaking many records in this respect. Now for our shareholders, this represents obviously a value creation without parallel in our group's recent history, right? And we have roughly EUR 4.7 billion returned to shareholders for 2025 in the form of dividends and share buybacks. And in 2025, one of this total shareholder return is over roughly 237%, as you can see on this slide.

Now this value creation obviously directly benefits the employee shareholders who represent 10% of the company's equity. And they are rewarded as employees, but also as shareholders. Our Dear shareholders, I think we have begun to write our story at new with the opportunity to once again be masters of our destiny. Now obviously, there are uncertainties, they are different, right? We have geopolitical crisis. We have the crisis in the Middle East, the restructuring of the value chains, technological disruptions, disruptions in international trade, supply of raw material, critical metals and without the channels through which these factors affect the economy being entirely foreseeable or predictable. Fundamentally, something has changed in the way we must manage [indiscernible] groups in this increasingly uncertain world.

We need to ensure risk management. We must apply the instincts, right, throughout our banking history. We need to monitor these risks, extreme risks namely. We need to, in other words, do our work with a lot of rigor and discipline and always questioning what we do, the way we do it in order to better perform year after year. We have a solid track record. But most of all, we recognize that this is a work that needs to be done and improved on a daily basis. Stronger we can also tackle the challenge of artificial intelligence, head-on artificial intelligence has become almost a stable of [indiscernible] features, right? The impact of AI are massive, decisive. These impacts need to be prepared, and we are preparing for them because there are certain number of prerequisites in taking on new technologies, a certain number of different architectures in order to ensure that they are performing, and this obviously requires a certain number of modern infrastructure.

So we've been working on these issues, topics for years now in order to make this technological transition possible. We've launched a certain number of trials, tests. We are also training our employees to take on these changes. But -- obviously no one knows to what extent and how fast these changes will hit us and how the impact will be big. We are in a transition. The banking industry is a great industry and a great industry in which the quality of data management is huge. And if we manage this in the right way, we will perform better and be able to reduce our costs. So we are taking on this challenge, and we will be successful.

Ladies and gentlemen, since 2023, we have rebuilt strong basis for our activity. If we continue with the necessary transitions or transformations, we will manage to continue the good results that we have shown in recent years. The financial solidity, the strategical rigor, the rigor in terms of cost management are the basis of a strong and sustainable growth. This rigor is also the basis of a long-term quality commitment to our pledge to fund the economy and serve our clients. And we are determined to ensure that this does not change. We have presented our strategy and our road map in 2023. We have implemented it in a very rigorous manner with results that you know. The commitment of all which will allow us to achieve and even do better than the 2026 objectives that we have set ourselves.

We are going to continue to do this, but we are much stronger to do so, and we will be able to go even further in order to do better than many of the best-performing banks in Europe. And this is an ambition that we will have at the heart of our next Capital Market Day on 21st of September 2026, which will mark the start of the second phase of transformation.

Now I would like, obviously, to end my speech with a special thank you to our Chair, Lorenzo, who is, as he mentioned, chairing today his final Annual General Meeting. Lorenzo's contribution to our governance over the years has been absolutely pivotal. He has brought to our group his broad perspective, his experience as a central banker, his deep understanding of macroeconomics, his ability to anticipate disruptions and changes in the environment and finally, his European outlook because Lorenzo is a deeply European man. His courage and determination has allowed Societe Generale to live through the crisis in recent years. So ladies and gentlemen, allow me to express on behalf of the group and mine obviously, our most sincere thanks for his service as he is about to pass the torch with your support to William Conley as Chairman of our bank's Board of Directors. Thank you again.

Bolstered by our 161-year history, our recent successes and the strength of our franchises serving our 27 million customers, bolstered by everything that we have proven to be able to do. I have unlimited confidence in our ability to meet the challenges before us and in the ability of our company, Societe Generale to embrace the future and the opportunities for growth and value creation that lie ahead. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for these nice words, Slavomir. I'm now going to give the floor to Pierre Palmieri. He will be presenting to us our CSR strategy.

Hello to everyone. As you know, we have chosen to embed sustainability issues into our strategy. We remain committed to this approach. We are strengthening the integration of these issues into the group's operations and supporting our clients through major transitions. And we are pursuing this approach with a constant spirit of responsibility and innovation. Allow me to begin by highlighting three of the major upheavals we are collectively facing. Climate change remains a major challenge as highlighted by the scientific community.

Furthermore, at a time when the international balance of power is shifting, resilience and sovereignty are emerging as priorities. Finally, the development of artificial intelligence is a revolution for all economic players and is creating new opportunities. Building the future with our employees and customers, therefore, requires foresight a long-term vision and determination. These challenges are an opportunity to grow our business, manage our risks and make a positive contribution to the major transformations taking place in economies and societies. I would first like to review the concrete progress made in our CSR strategy, particularly in terms of the environmental transition.

Firstly, we are continuing to pursue our objectives to decarbonize our operations. We have made significant progress regarding our financial portfolios in the highest emitting sectors. Here are two examples. By the end of 2025, we are ahead of schedule in reducing our exposure to oil and gas production by 80% between 2019 and 2030. We are also reducing the carbon intensity of our electricity generation financing portfolio. This is thanks to an increasingly significant share of electricity generated from renewable energy sources. Through our Leasing subsidiary, [indiscernible], which operates the world's largest multi-brand fleet of electric vehicles, we are actively contributing to the electrification of our customers' vehicle fleets. Avven has, in fact, just received an SBTi certification, which is a science-based targets initiative certification for its decarbonization road map.

As a responsible bank, we are also reducing emissions linked to our own operations. We are, therefore, on track to meet our target of 50% reduction between 2019 and 2030. We have achieved a 44% reduction by the end of 2025, excluding the purchase of renewable electricity. In particular, we are working on the energy efficiency of buildings, reducing business travel and promoting more sustainable digital practices. Secondly, we are actively pursuing our goal of mobilizing EUR 500 billion for sustainable finance between 2024 and 2030. This ambition is reflected in financing, advisory mandates and bond issues supporting environmental and social objectives. By the end of [ 203 ]5, this contribution will reach EUR 165 billion, slightly ahead of our target.

I would also like to reaffirm our commitment to supporting our clients, both individuals and businesses as they navigate the challenges of transition and adaptation. Our recognized expertise in renewable energy and the energy transition constitutes a competitive advantage. This is reflected in our involvement in projects relating to energy generation, transmission and storage infrastructure of carbon capture. As such, the group continues to distinguish itself as a leading player in project finance advisory services supporting this transition. Furthermore, the group continues to finance innovation by supporting the emergence of new players and new technologies, hydrogen, battery storage and the electrification of road transport. Beyond financing the energy transition, this year has also been dedicated to continuing our efforts regarding adaptation and resilience in the face of climate change.

We have strengthened our capacity to analyze issues related to nature, particularly water and the consequences of climate-related hazards. We are developing analytical tools to discuss the resilience of our clients' businesses with them. The aim is to help them better understand their risk and offer them the most appropriate advisory and financing solutions. As an example -- for example, we have supported a 25-hectare deforestation project in the Southeast of the United States as well as a program to adapt water infrastructure in the United Kingdom. The group has also invested on its own behalf in projects in France. We are working to promote reforestation and regenerative agriculture. We are also supporting the plan of hedge growth and reintroduction of fruit growing sectors. The Societe Generale Group Foundation is strengthening its environmental initiatives through new purchase partnerships.

For instance, it supports the [indiscernible] Foundation and more specifically, a program to reforest waterways across several geographical sites. In 2025, we carried out initiatives to raise customer awareness of ocean protection and water-related issues. The bank organizes conferences across all regions of France on these topics. Furthermore, our employees worldwide took part in a charity sport challenge supporting 11 partners committed to preserving the environment and biodiversity.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the past year marked an important step towards embedding CSR firmly into the bank's day-to-day operations. At an operational level, we have integrated environmental and social considerations into our strategic decisions and the group's processes. This approach has enabled us to meet the ECB's requirements to publish our second sustainability report and align ourselves with the European Banking Authorities new guidelines on ESG risk management. The consideration of environmental and social risks is reinforced by appropriate governance. The Board of Directors plays a central role. It approves the strategic directions, including those related to environmental and social matters put forward by the executive management and ensures their implementation. It fully integrates social responsibility issues within its bodies, notably through the Risk Committee. This governance forms the foundation of an ambiguous -- rather an ambitious social policy placing human capital at the heart of the group's sustainable performance against the backdrop of profound transformation.

This translates into a constant and renewed commitment to ensure the skill match job requirements based on training, adaptation and the anticipation of skills needs. This policy prioritizes internal mobility over redundancy plans. In 2025, over 60% of positions were filled through internal mobility and each employee received an average of 33 hours of training. The group is committed to promoting individual and collective performance by fostering cohesion, collaboration and the transfer of skills. In this context, remote working practices have been reviewed and are currently being harmonized. They aim to support effective teamwork, cooperation between business lines and a sense of belonging to the group. Furthermore, ongoing simplification efforts aim to improve quality of life at work.

The group also promotes a fair and inclusive environment. The proportion of women within the top 250 is increasing and will exceed 31% by 2025. The results of the employee barometer, which are down since 2024 are a key concern for senior management. Our employees' commitment is indeed seen as a key factor in the success of our collective projects. The group's ESG policy is recognized by nonfinancial rating agencies, which ranks Societe Generale above the sector average and in some cases, at the highest level. Once again, this year, we have been honored by several awards, both for our CSR strategy and also for our ability to structure innovative initiatives in this field.

In conclusion, our determination to contribute to a sustainable world remains undiminished. Ensuring our actions are sustainable and working towards transition adaptation is above all a matter of creating value for our clients, our employees and, of course, our shareholders. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you very much, Pierre. So now we are going to be looking at the company governance. You can look at Page 63. There's a report on company governance that you can read the reports, and there you will also see the Chairman's activities.

In 2025, the Board of Directors met 11 times. This does not include committee meetings. There were 35 meetings in total, meetings of nonexecutive directors and strategy seminars and training sessions. The attendance rate was 65%. This reflects the very high level of commitment shown by the directors. In addition to all regulatory matters, the Board of Directors devoted considerable time to strategy, in particular, to monitoring the implementation of the guidelines announced at the Capital Markets Day on the 18th of September 2023 for the period of 2024 to 2026.

The Board of Directors has also approved the Bank's CSR strategy. It has worked extensively on the sustainability report, and you have the contents of which can be found in the universal registration document on Page 263 in the following pages. On Page 62, you have the universal registration document. You will find a summary of the assessment of the Board of Directors' work. This assessment was carried out independently by [indiscernible]. He is very positive.

[Interpreted] It has worked extensively on the sustainability report, and you have the contents of which can be found in the universal registration document on Page 263 in the following pages. On Page 62, you have the universal registration document. You will find a summary of the assessment of the Board of Directors' work. This assessment was carried out independently by [ Senor Stewart ]. It's very positive, both in terms of the Board's composition and the quality of its work.

The Board of Directors has ensured that it possesses all the necessary expertise for its operations. The arrival of Ingrid H. Arnold has strengthened its technological expertise, and with Laura Barlow, has bolstered its expertise in risk and CSR, and with Olivier Klein, has enhanced its expertise in retail banking.

I would remind you that the Board of Directors also benefits from the expertise and experience of its Non-Executive Director, [ JB Levy ], on CSR and climate issues. We have also taken steps to enhance the training of the 14 members of the Board of Directors, particularly on CSR issues, but also on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, which are key topics for the future of the banking industry. As for my personal role, I have been actively involved in liaising with regulators and have met with international shareholders and investors, particularly in the run-up to the Annual General Meeting.

The year 2025 was marked by several major governance decisions. We announced the reappointment of Slawomir Krupa as CEO upon the renewal of his term as a director in 2027. This early decision is based on 3 key considerations: first, to stabilize the group's governance; two, to put the group in the best possible position to prepare the new strategic plan, which will be announced in September 2026; and three, to enable Slawomir Krupa, whose track record has been exceptional, to continue his work for the benefit of the group, its employees, its shareholders and its customers.

Secondly, we wanted to strengthen the attractiveness and effectiveness of the Board of Directors through remuneration commensurate with its objective of becoming a major bank in Europe. It is therefore proposed to increase the remuneration budget from EUR 1.835 million to EUR 2.25 million to bring it closer to the average for European banks, around EUR 3 million.

Three, I would like to prepare my replacement as Chairman by appointing William Connelly. This choice was already presented to you last year. William Connelly has extensive banking and financial experience. He is thoroughly familiar with corporate governance, having previously chaired for [ Aegon ] and also has highly valuable experience in technology as he chairs at [ Amadeus ]. Following this meeting, it will be for the Board to confirm his appointment. In anticipation of this, I offer him on my own behalf and on yours, my most sincere congratulations.

Four, we will be replacing certain directors with my departure and with William Connelly moving in as Chair of the Risk Committee -- Chair of the Board. [ Konem ] was tasked with finding a candidate capable of chairing the Risk Committee. [ Konem ] has successfully met this challenge by putting forward the nomination of Clara Furse for your vote. Clara has extensive banking and financial experiences, having notably served as a Chief Executive who shaped the London Stock Exchange into what it is today. She subsequently served as a Director of major financial institutions. Thank you, Clara, for being here today. We would like -- could you please tell us what your motivation is, Clara?

[Interpreted] Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Clara Furse. It is a pleasure to be here today at this general assembly. I am very honored to be here and very honored to be able to present myself.

After more than 40 years working in the financial sector and working in the city of London, I have gained a profound acknowledge that I hope to bring to the Board of Directors of this very important bank, this very important universal bank. I am very excited to be able to participate in meeting our ambitions and also in developing the Societe Generale in the years to come. I would like to sincerely thank you for giving me your trust.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much, Clara. You are asked to ratify the cooptation of Laura Barlow. This cooptation took effect on the 1st of September following the resignation of Beatrice Cossa-Dumurgier. Laura Barlow has extensive experience as a banker. She has recently retired from Barclays and therefore, has an up-to-date knowledge of banking and financial risks, particularly ESG risks.

Since September, the Board has been able to assess her understanding of our business lines. In particular, she sits on the Risk Committee. It is proposed that you ratify her cooptation and appoint her for a 4-year term commencing today. Dear Laura, would you like to say a few words to our shareholders?

[Interpreted] Thank you very much, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen, shareholders, general administrators, Chairman, it's with a great honor that I am here today before you. My name is Laura Barlow. I am British, and I live in London. I am married, and I have 2 adult sons who work in the business world and also in law.

My ambition is to bring to the Board my experience in the banking world internationally after 15 years working in high-level positions in banks such as Barclays, specifically working in banking services to companies, regulatory and also sustainable development. I worked for 20 years for multinational companies in transformation. I have been -- I have chaired -- rather, I have been a part of a number of different boards and also worked for the UN for the environment.

I would like to bring all of my practical and banking experiences in the service of your Board of Directors. I will give my best as I have been able to do in my previous positions. I would like to thank you for your trust.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much, Laura. Finally, two reappointments, that of Jerome Contamine for a third term. Jerome chaired the Audit and the Internal Control Committee, having previously chaired the Remuneration Committee. He has extensive experience in financial matters and the management of large listed companies, either as an executive or as a director.

And that of Diane Cote's nomination for a third term. Diane is a member of the Audit and Internal Control Committee and the Risk Committee. She is also a member of the Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee. Diane has extensive experience in the financial sector. She has served as a Director on the boards of several companies. She currently sits on the Board of [ Eskor ]. Thank you for your support.

If you approve these proposals, the Board of Directors will consist of 15 members, 13 elected by the Annual General Meeting, including 1 director representing employee shareholders, 2 employee directors. Out of those, there will be 11 independent directors, 7 women, including 1 elected by the employees.

It is now time to move on to the section on remuneration. Annette Messemer, Chair of the Remuneration Committee, will present this.

[Interpreted] Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we have -- so the remuneration of the -- will be fixed at -- and they will be giving [indiscernible]. So all of these topics will be part of a topic that will come in front of the Board. In 2025, this will be -- this Board will be meeting 7 times.

According to the laws, the general assembly must approve the amount in 2026, the [ sixth ] and seventh proposals. And also that happening for 2025, the Resolutions 8 and 10. Attention needs to be given to this presentation to the increasing of the remuneration for the General Director, which is Resolution #6.

For the Chairman, the amount remains the same. For Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, it was fixed at EUR 925,000 gross per annum since May 2028 and for the duration of his Chairman office. His remuneration remained unchanged upon the renewal of his term as a Director and Chairman at the Annual General Meeting of the 17th of May, 2022.

With regard to William Connelly's remuneration, the Board of Directors intends to maintain his remuneration at the same level as that of his predecessor. This approach is justified by Mr. Connelly's experience as a Director of Societe Generale as a Chairman of the Risk Committee since 2018. He was Chairman of Aegon and former CEO of ING. And by the European benchmark, as a regulated institution, Societe Generale is in a comparable position to Barclays, UniCredit, Intesa, Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas.

With regard to the remuneration of executive directors for the year 2025, the various components are set out in the table below and have been determined in accordance with the rules of the remuneration policy approved for the year of 2025. This includes fixed remuneration, annual variable remuneration and long-term incentive schemes. The amount of the annual variable remuneration were determined taking into account the rate of achievement of the targets set for the 2025 financial year. More than 65% of the annual variable remuneration is linked to the value of the SG shares, and 60% of the total is deferred over 5 years and subject to performance conditions in accordance with banking regulations.

The long-term incentive, which is entirely linked to the share price, may only be vested after 5 years, subject to the fulfillment of performance conditions. For 1/3, linked to the relative performance of the SG share, 1/3 linked to future profitability measured by ROTE and 1/3 linked to an 80% reduction in exposure to the oil and gas sectors and the contribution of [ EUR 500 billion ] to sustainable finance. On this basis, the Chief Executive Officer's total remuneration for 2025 will be 1% lower than the remuneration awarded for 2024.

The 2025 executive remuneration report contains information on changes in the remuneration of each executive director compared with the average and median remuneration of employees and the group's performance. The charts presented show the ratio between the Chief Executive Officer's remuneration and the average employee remuneration since 2023. The 2025 ratio is down compared with 2024.

It should be noted that over the period between 2023 and 2025, the group's profitability was measured by ROTE increased by 6 percentage points. Earnings per share increased by 213% and total shareholder return increased by 237%.

In connection with the full year renewal of Slawomir Krupa's term of office with effect from the Annual General Meeting of the 16th of May 2027, the Board of Directors proposes to increase his fixed remuneration for 2026 to EUR 2.4 million compared with EUR 1.65 million since his appointment in May 2023. The variable component remains unchanged.

And this proposal is based on the following factors. The positioning of the proposed fixed remuneration has been determined in relation to a panel of benchmark European banks. The table on the right shows the positioning of the Chief Executive Officer's fixed remuneration before and after the proposed revision based on the study carried out by Willis Towers Watson.

Currently, the Chief Executive Officer's fixed remuneration is 28% below the panel median and falls within the first quarter. Following the increase, it will be close to the median, but would remain 34% below the third quartile of the European panel. Exceptional performance since taking up his position, right, exceeding all targets announced for 2025: revenue growth; cost and risk and control; profitability; the completion of the divestment plan and the sharp rise in the share price; the desire to secure the group's leadership in the long term within a highly competitive international environment, where senior executives are scarce and where Slawomir Krupa enjoys international recognition. And finally, this remuneration will not be reviewed upon the renewal of the mandate next year and at the very least, for the duration of the new strategic plan in accordance with the recommendations of the [ AC MEDEF ] Corporate Governance Code. Pierre Palmieri's fixed remuneration remains unchanged.

Now with regards to variable remuneration, its terms remain unchanged for 2026. It comprises annual variable remuneration and a long-term incentive scheme. The target annual variable remuneration is determined 65% on the basis of the achievement of financial criteria relating to the ROTE, the group operating ratio and the CET1 ratio used as a threshold criteria, 20% on the basis of the achievement of CSR objectives and 15% on the basis of regulatory compliance and group transformation criteria, common to all chief executives as on objectives specific to each executive.

Long-term incentive awards may only be vested after 5 years, subject to the fulfillment of performance conditions. The Board of Directors will define,, following the publication of the new strategic plan, which is scheduled for September, the new structure and the new targets for the variable component of the Chief Executive Officer's remuneration for 2027. It is noted that in accordance with banking regulations, the sum of the annual variable remuneration and long-term incentive awarded may not exceed 2 years fixed remuneration.

Chief Executive Officers are also eligible for: compensation to offset a noncompetition clause paid at the level of their fixed remuneration and lasting for 12 months; a severance payment, which is paid only in the event of compulsory departure from the group. And finally, managing directors retain the benefit of the supplementary pension scheme for senior executives. Finally, the Remuneration Committee has ensured that the remuneration arrangements for regulated under the CRDV directive, the amounts to be paid to this group in 2025 are submitted to you for a consultative vote via the 13th resolution. Thank you for your attention.

[Interpreted] Thank you. Thank you, Annette. Let's now move to questions. So regarding written questions. So this year, shareholders submitted one or more written questions, which is usually several. So the total number of questions were 69 by 9 shareholders or 4 retail shareholders. The responses were published on the general meeting website. And apart from those of a purely informative nature, the questions related to the topics that had already been addressed since the start of the general meeting: results, accounts, dividend policy, and above all, CSR policy and the climate transition. As these responses have been published, they will not be read out at the meeting.

I'll now open the floor -- open the floor for questions for the audience. As I've already mentioned, if you have any questions regarding your personal situation as a customer, there is a stand at the entrance where staff will be able to assist you, and they will be available to you after the Annual General Meeting. Microphones are available and will be passed to you by the hostesses. Please return the microphone as soon as you have finished your question. I would also ask everyone to keep their comments brief and limit the number of questions so that as many shareholders as possible can speak.

I suggest we begin with a question from the Shareholders' Advisory Committee. Madam [indiscernible], you have the floor.

[Interpreted] Hello. Like many individual shareholders, I've been a loyal SG shareholder for over 50 years. And on behalf of the individual shareholders I represent today, I would first like to offer my congratulations to you, your Executive Committee and all your teams on the challenging transformation you have successfully led over the past 3 years. Thanks to the strong recovery in financial indicators, you have restored investor confidence in the SG Group, as evidenced by the remarkable rise in the share price from which we have all benefited.

That said, in light of the indicators mentioned in the nonfinancial report, there has been a decline in staff engagement and in the quality of the business and customer loyalty as measured by customer satisfaction levels. With satisfaction levels falling for the second consecutive year within the French network resulting from the CD and SG merger, which accounts for a significant proportion of the group's results, these 2 assets are essential to value creation in the medium term. And my question is, in a highly competitive environment, [ mutual network ] on one hand, digital banks on the other and retaining the skills necessary for the development of strategic activities, what role do you intend to give to these 2 assets in the forthcoming 2027-2030 strategic plan, and with what objectives?

[Interpreted] Well, thank you, [ Dominique ]. Well, to start with on behalf of the teams, on behalf of the management team, thank you very much for your very kind words. Obviously, what we do requires strong commitment and hard work on a daily basis. So it is always nice to see that people feel this and acknowledge it.

Now you asked a very, very important question about the 2 very, very important assets for every company, but for Societe Generale specifically. So I'll try and take a bit of time to answer this question. I'll start with the [ Barona ].

We take a step back, you need to bear in mind that 2024, as the first year of our transformation, saw many, many aspects of the transformation linked to the financial transformation, right, on the capital and also the various disposals. Now in reality, the transformation perceived by the teams, and especially regarding their daily work, really happened in 2025. In 2024, we made many and very strategic decisions which had an indirect impact on employees, obviously excluding those who were part of the disposal schemes.

Now in 2025, employees are, let's say, directly impacted, let's say. Now in 2025, we are in this context of transformation, as you mentioned in your question. And this environment is very broad, right? And this naturally creates the, let's say, the challenges to our teams.

If I could summarize this in a few words, we require from everyone, much more efficiency, less waste. We are much more demanding with our teams, and we ask them to be demanding with themselves, with their colleagues. A certain number of changes in the work organization and a lot of questioning, and namely questioning the culture of our company. A certain number of practices that have been around for decades need to change and need to be changed in a certain number of aspects. And especially in environment with increasing uncertainty, environments in which there is increasing anxiety, and an environment in which, let's say, changing these habits is tougher. It also requires our employees to make, let's say, different decisions or decisions in a different way. Now all of this obviously applies to everyone, to management, senior management, to myself.

Now in the [ Ram ] survey, well, we have a very interesting feedback. It's obviously a very serious exercise that we take very seriously. Now this feedback, we have to take into account. We take into account. It has to lead us to question ourselves. It leads me to question myself. And we need to come up with a positive answer in that we take into account what our teams tell us, and we try to come up with the answers that are expected from us. And as you said, the assets, namely, the teams that interact on a daily basis with our customers is very important as without them, there is no long-term future for any company and for Societe Generale for that matter.

And so we have committed to work on 4 different aspects. To start with, spend more time in explaining. Now I don't need to go over everything that we see. But in 2024, we spent a lot of time explaining what we do, trying to decipher the various decisions that we made, strategic decisions that we made, which we call financial decisions. But they're not so much financial. Rather, they are strategic, and they set the structure of our strategy. And well, I mean, we've seen in different ways today, to what extent we were right to make these changes. Anyway, the efforts that we put in explaining these decisions was not sufficient. So we need to improve this.

Secondly, we need to organize ourselves in a better way when it comes to listening to the teams in order to ensure that we capture everywhere, the various messages that are set to us, be it in New York in Wall Street or be it in a small local branch or be it in India. Everywhere we have staff, we have people who have questions for us. And all these questions, individual questions, we need to be able to consider.

Third, we need to accelerate the simplification. And there is indeed, a very concrete positive impact for this. Now I'll give you a few examples, EUR 1 billion. I mean, you know the size of the company. The cost basis or cost structure of the company is EUR 1 billion, right, in terms of additional labor costs, right? That is significant. And the interest scheme has increased by 50%, roughly EUR 100 million last year. And not even mentioning the value creation, it's very difficult to value, but it's close to EUR 3 billion, EUR 4 billion.

So from a financial point of view, if we take a step back, I think we can agree to say that there are concrete benefits to do what we have done. Now where it is not that obvious, it's when it comes to simplifying these simplifications. It's still quite difficult for many of the guys out there to really understand all of this. And sometimes imperfections and -- I think it's not much, saying this -- is too important. The imperfection is too important, and the quality is not there.

And the thing that we have all these changes that are ongoing and our colleagues do not yet see or sense the benefit to them in terms of quality of the work organization. It is indeed linked mainly the quality of the tools that we make available and also the quality of our processes. So we have an ongoing program -- transformation program, which is rather holistic, which is being implemented by thousands of our employees.

And we are adding a specific -- to simplifying our operations and simplifying and in that, improving the quality of life at work. So the simplification actions will be backed by a certain number of investments, namely in IT tools. We've already started this, right, because there was an emergency, namely level of network. And so yes, we have started this, and we've already actually started getting positive feedback following this.

So I'd like to add two things now. To start with, this survey, the [ Rongter ] was carried out end of 2025. Now beginning of 2026, we added on something essential and quite unique, I believe, if we compare with other major French and European banks. And this is at the same time, now we have many more transformations to come.

We still wish to operate this transformation without letting go anyone. And I think this is essential because some people obviously have an increasing anxiety when they consider the future within Societe Generale. But the thing is that we commit to make sure that within Societe Generale, there will be opportunities for all everywhere, wherever they are, whatever they do.

So I think, yes, it's very, very important to consider this. We committed to this. We discussed this with employee representatives, with my teams. And so we are going to implement this transformation, and there's still a lot that needs to be done, taking seriously this objective to not let go anyone in the process.

And finally, I want to be very clear on one thing. Is the transformation over? No, certainly not. And far from it. Are we going to continue in the upcoming cycle in a very determined way to increase the efficiency of the company? Well, the answer is yes. Yes, we are going to continue, and we are very determined to do so to increase, let's say, the performances of the company because we are still one of the worst [ banks ] out there, and we cannot be one of the worst banks in terms of efficiency. It's just not possible. Are we going to continue to question ourselves, my teams, management, general management and so on? Yes, obviously. But all of us and myself included and senior management, we need to constantly question ourselves in order to ensure that we are successful in implementing these changes that we presented to you and that you entrusted.

Now regarding the interaction with our clients and the quality of this interaction, quality of our customer service. Now especially in the world today, right? I mean, this has always been important, right? But I think especially in this environment of hyper competition, it is a life-threatening issue, to put it this way.

So first thing here, I consider the performance of the company as a whole, and then I go into more detail. So you mentioned retail banking in France. I'll come back to this later on. But performances are not what we want them to be. Having said this, at EUR 27.3 billion in revenue, and we have so many more activities than the network in France. So if we consider this more specifically, more than half of the group's activity have great performances in terms of quality. We'll get to retail banking in a moment, because this is so important and this is our historic activity in France.

Now to start with, more than half of our activity is, let's say, has achieved some of the best scoring, if I may say, in terms of quality. Second, [ 60% ] of scope, I must say, is improving compared to last year. And third, the network of France are experiencing some of the biggest changes. So I'll put it differently. We actually just did something that we have never done before in France, merging 2 retail banks, 2 independent retail banks who have been working independently for 20 years, [indiscernible].

So the idea that -- and here again, I want to clarify this, right? The idea that just by -- of fingers, we can achieve in-depth transformation whilst achieving the results, it's just an illusion. So I'm not saying that it's not important, but I'm saying it's critical, and we are working on that. But then again, at some point, if we are going to concentrate on these in-depth transformations, what I mean this is not going to happen overnight.

But then if I can turn the question back to you, had we not done the merger between Credit du Nord and Societe Generale -- and by the way, in order to ensure that we deserve customer -- the quality of customer service. Well, the answer is no because we know that the results [indiscernible] the impact of what we did will be so much better than the contrary had we not done it, right?

Now I'm not going to load everything on the merger, right? This merger is important, obviously, and it is fundamental, especially to the environment in France. But there's a number of other items that need to be considered, commercial, right, sales-related, namely. It's important for the teams, retail banking teams to obviously be the best-in-class when it comes to customer service, right? And we are working on this. We've been working on this for quite some time for more than a year now.

But again, there's no magic here. It can't happen overnight. But we are doing what needs to be done. Quality of tools that are made available to employees is also so important. I mentioned this earlier on. It's so important, especially for our guys who interact with the customers directly. So we carried out number of investments last year. There still is a lot that needs to be done, and we're going to continue to do what needs to be done.

And finally -- and I need to acknowledge this. For various reasons, I could go on for hours, but I'll stop in a few seconds, right? But we need to ensure this cultural change, right? When you commit to these huge transformations, mentioning here again, the merger, right? And this was carried out with a lot of talent by the teams.

But beyond the impact of these changes, there is obviously a lack of attention brought to customer service. So -- but this is obvious. If for 4, 5, 6 years, you can concentrate on any other topic, if you do not do customer service, customer service is going to drop. So there is something that we need to do, and that has to do with the culture, our culture. And as often in life, major changes take time to occur, to be implemented.

[Interpreted] So as I was saying, if there is somebody who wants to speak, just raise your hand.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much. [ Jean Batiste ], [indiscernible]. So during the subprime crisis, the banks ended up with some financial instruments, liquid, financial -- and so I had a question for you. Today, 15 years after the crisis, what happened to these assets? And were we able to make anything off of the backs of them?

[Interpreted] So you want to know what we made. I'll have to be able to answer you later. I don't have that figure in mind. But yes, like in other banks, we did have to use some of these assets, which were quite an important quantity. And during the financial crisis, there were two issues. The value was much lower. We had to segregate them for that reason. But also, this was worsened by the crisis itself, and this is why we had to liquidate them.

So to give you an example of what I'm saying, so this doesn't really affect us because we sold them. But what the creditors of Lehman was able to recuperate, so 15, 20 years later, it's $0.84 on the dollar, I believe. So it's very high in terms of what they were able to recuperate for Lehman Brothers. And I believe this is based on my memory. I think my memory is correct.

So our issue was different at the time. We had massive risk, which -- and the market would have liked us to see abandon those things very quickly. And so we had to -- like everyone, we had to optimize this leveraging, these sales. And we didn't have the luxury of waiting 20 years to recoup the maximum we could on our exposures.

So if you take a photo at the beginning of 2007 and a photo where we had no more exposure for the bad bank before 2020, there's only losses in millions. And we are not -- we are hoping to never find ourselves in that situation again. Any other questions?

[Interpreted] My name is [ Jean-Benoit Ricayi ] from the CFTC. So the Board is proposing that we increase the remuneration of the General Director by 85%. So these arguments were not retained by the employees. And in fact, we spoke about the fragility of these results. So what conclusions does the Board come to when it comes to the inequality of these treatments and the commitment of employees in the future?

[Interpreted] So I think we should look at Page 48, a page that we were able to look -- that we looked at before with -- during the presentation. And so here, you can see the logic that was put forward for this. So looking at what happened 3 years ago, the remuneration of the CEO was 30% lower than the average. So we had a choice of either keeping it 30% lower or to adjust it. So looking at the results that we've achieved these past 3 years, we decided that it was appropriate to adjust it to meet the average.

It's a very simple decision. It was based on very simple analysis. It reflects the performance of the Societe Generale over the last 3 years and also the signal that we want to send and the message that we want to send to the next 3 years. The policy of remuneration of the company that we have approved, all of this is part of this reasoning. And this is all the responsibility of the management, of course.

So what we are submitting to you today in terms of remuneration is part of a series of arguments that all have their logic. Of course, there is a time for each decision. 3 years ago, we made a very difficult decision because we decided to remunerate at minus 30%. But I believe that after 3 years, it was fair to adapt it and to increase it to meet the average. So there's logic behind this decision. It's rational, and it's what pushed us to make this decision and why we submitted this to you today.

There you go. Thank you very much. Now, #10?

[Interpreted] [ Charles Leclier ], I've been a shareholder for over 20 years. Congratulations, bravo, Krupa. You are the title of the [indiscernible]. And we really have to -- you have managed to do the impossible. You have turned around the markets and you made markets believe in the Societe Generale.

So two questions on your method, just to be reassured for the future. So number one, the Krupa method, managing potential risks, these risks that could be very expensive. I'm thinking about [ Cavienn ]. I'm thinking of the rates coverage. So what is -- what do you do? What is your method for avoiding this type of risk that could end up make us end up in a bad situation like in the past?

The second question, what is the Krupa method for managing investments? Could we please know the key points to know whether we should invest or not? I read recently that you have -- when it comes to financing, you have principal criteria on a checklist. And are you close to the Warren Buffett criteria, or rather, method when you invest?

And the third question, SG versus BNP, what are your 3 biggest arguments, being as objective as possible? And this is, of course, to convince hesitant investors in investing in SG. And finally, I would like to thank you, Krupa, because thanks to the increase in SG shares, I have received a prize this year.

[Interpreted] Thank you very much. Yes, I'm smiling, but your questions are very serious and they're very important for the company. And so I'm going to try and answer them.

So the first regarding risk management, I'm going to start by repeating what I said before. You have to start off by being -- you have to start off with humility. As soon as you lose that, that's when things are going to start to deteriorate. So that's the first pillar.

And I think that Pierre and I know this. We've been working together for a long time. I was -- had a chance to work with him in the past and was able to learn with him and learn how to manage risks for our largest clients. So first of all, we need to be -- have humility. And second, we have to have experience.

In a bank -- and I think this is for most industries, but in banks, experience is colossal. It's super important. We're talking about criteria, taking risks, how we get credits. More you have seen situations in a 20- or 30-year career, better you will be prepared where you have a better reference point to be able to imagine what could happen, what could go wrong.

And this is kind of the beauty of our job. Whenever somebody wants to do something very important and they're super optimistic and our client is super optimistic, they want to buy a home, they want to buy a bicycle, a company that wants to do something. They are super optimistic, but we need to be super pessimistic. And we also have to be ready to commit.

And so yes, this is why we have these stress tests. And we always have to be able to simulate what could go wrong. You need to imagine scenarios, the worst case scenario. Of course, you have to look at all the possible scenarios. And unfortunately, today, we have seen that extreme situations do occur. And so you need to look at these different scenarios and decide whether yes or no, we can manage these situations. And if we can't, then how can we adjust it to be able to take on that risk. In this way, we are prepared for difficult situations. So I hope that this gives you an idea of what our job is day-to-day, what goes behind every decision that is made when we are managing portfolios and risks. And so now my third point, concentration.

So I hope that this gives you an idea of what our job is day-to-day, what goes behind every decision that is made when we are managing portfolios and risks. And so now my third point, concentration. I think that there's something that we have learned throughout our careers is that the biggest issue is when you were too concentrated on one thing, like, for example, the subprime itself wasn't such a huge issue, but if you have billions of it, then it becomes an issue.

So the paper was -- it was toxic and the toxic hadn't -- the toxicity of it hadn't been taken into consideration. So we are very careful about this. We really are careful when it comes about where we are concentrating our efforts. And then the third point that we are responsible for here and the Board of Directors is responsible for because we validate strategies and whatnot.

We have to have a buffer when it comes to regulatory measures. And this is one of the reasons that we decided to increase our ratio from 12 to 13 because in banks, you're going to lose banks. We are going to lose money. This is part of our job. And some of intellectuals will even say, if you don't lose money, it's because you're not optimizing your activity. That's not really our opinion, but some say this.

So having 100 basis points of buffer, it means having as much capacity to be able to absorb major shocks without you, shareholders become diluted because we have lost money. So this buffer is critical for you. And if you're asking the question, if you're asking why our shares have reacted in the way that they have reacted, well, it's because we had this ratio because it removed this dilution risk that a shareholder -- shareholder holds.

And finally, the base costs and the profitability of the company, that is part of this structural resilience. And this is easily understood. When you have EUR 3.5 billion or EUR 4 billion published revenue, well, that is -- this means that it's billions more to be able to absorb a crisis. So costs, all of this that I'm talking about is part of the resilience that a banking industry has.

And so we work -- we really try to focus on all of this. So now when you talk about my method for investment, it's very simple. I don't really think we could compare -- you can compare me to Warren Buffett, and I think our jobs are completely different. We take risks first. This is something that we do on a daily basis for our clients. But the company also invests in business and development of BoursoBank and [indiscernible] and acquisitions.

And the criteria is very simple. Same criteria as would be yours. Is this capital that we're going to -- this investment, given the risks that we are going to take, is it going to be profitable in comparison with another alternative? So really, basically, is it profitable or not? Is it diluting -- or is it creating value?

So that is the heart of how we make these decision. Then, of course, there's a number of different indicators based on the different situations. And now SG versus BNP, it's a little bit difficult for me to answer. I can't really speak publicly about this. I will only say that if you look at a number of different data points, you'll have answers regarding the last 3 years.

And we are going to do everything possible so that nothing changes in this regard. Now #6.

Thank you very much for this presentation and for excellent results in 2025. I had a question regarding the ROTE. 2025, you said it was a good year for ROTE with 10.2%, and it was improved by disposals. Net gains from disposals, which happened on 5 subsidiaries for a total of around EUR 300 million.

So if we exclude those, the ROTE is much less. So in 2025, we had a very good third quarter. So ROTE was 10.7%, but it went down in the fourth quarter to 9.5% because of the rate coverage contracts that were ended. So first quarter of 2026, we have a rate that is very good, 11.7%. So my question is, are there elements of disposals? What are the elements of disposals?

And is this or is there more organic growth, which without the disposals would allow us to improve on our ROTE performance. I also had a question regarding the increase in remuneration for the CEO. So if ever we are unhappy with the 2026 ROTE, it's below 10%, is there a way for us to perhaps go back on our decision of increasing the salary by 85%, at least on the fixed salary.

And finally, BNP said during their general assembly that so there's a bunch of positions that are being rotated. What is the question regarding the competencies.

So first of all, there is a fixed salary and a variable salary. And of course, if results at the end of the year are not favorable, then that will have an effect on the variable salary. But, of course, RoTE is one of the elements that we take into consideration. So now another question regarding the RoTE. You have a very -- all of the figures that you cited were correct. And yes, this is something that we have explained very, very well in all of our financial communications.

This year, first of all, more generally, what explains these changes quarter-to-quarter? Well, in 2025, there were a bunch of variables that have to do with our transformation. So we spoke about this in the CMD of 2023. We were spending BRL 1 billion of CTA for financing our transformation. And so at the beginning of the cycle, we spent a lot and then little by little until 2026. And so there are some structural phenomenon that has to do with this transformation.

That's my first point. And of course, it's not also linear going from quarter to quarter. The second point, there's also in a bank, it's very seasonal. So quarter 1, quarter 2, there are quarters that are very active, much higher, and it's because the market is much more active.

And then you will have ROE at the beginning of the year that is going to be very high and will allow us to reach the objectives by the end of the year. So for example, first quarter, we were at 11 and something of ROCE.

And then we also paid annual tax in quarter 1, which is usually above 12%. And so what you have to keep in mind is that there's this seasonality, a natural seasonality to our activities. And this changes throughout the year. But as you can see at the end of the year, we have still been meeting our objectives. And our goal is to have a ROTE above 10%.

So there's no -- nothing to be worried about on this point for now. Now when it comes to the competence question, the way that you need to think about this is, you have to think of this system. So the 1,800 positions that we spoke about during our communication, this is a net effect. So the skill sponsorship, the question about the skill sponsorship. There is more -- so this is where the training happens. We've had this whole entire mechanism put into place to help employees get training if they want to change positions or jobs and to be able to enable them and make it -- make the internal workflow more fluid.

And we want to do this to not do what we have -- we want to do this to not do what we have done in the past, which is to have these plans when we basically lay people off and have to pay them. We have thought it to be more favorable to keep them within the company and to help them to find other positions within the company. Perhaps we have to have smaller teams in one area, but we can move those people to another area in the bank. So that's what this -- that's the process that we have committed to. Number 8?

So the transmission shock was about EUR 9 million. How will the Societe Generale.

The interpreter apologizes as she did not hear the question.

So you're touching on an essential question. So when you have excess resources, so we have communicated a lot on this topic. So when you have an available capital, there's 3 ways to invest it, either in organic growth, either in inorganic growth or by redistributing it in dividends or in other ways to the shareholders.

And you have to be very rational and almost cold when you make this decision. You put your -- if you want to do organic growth, you will put it in an Excel sheet and you will compare it to what a shareholder would get in a share buyback or in dividends. And so this is what you first have to do. You have to look at what is most profitable.

There is a concept, an Anglo-Saxon concept that I really like, and it's called stewardship, stewardship of capital. It's difficult to translate this into French. But basically, what this means is that we -- here, we are not -- we don't own the capital of the company. You are the owners of this capital. And this is very important how a company and a Board of Directors, we really cannot ever forget that we don't own this money.

We are just managing it, and it's because you trust us. And so we have to manage this money with your interest in mind and not with our fantasy or our own egos in mind. And so we need to put this into a kind of an excel file and try to see what is most profitable for the shareholder. And of course, I mean, if it was not simple, then you wouldn't need us. So we have to look into this a little bit closer. We need to constantly be thinking about the strategy of the company. Where do we have the best interest in developing?

And also in your interest, long term, where should we grow in efficiency and where should we improve the quality of our products? Of course, I'm giving you a very obvious question here, a very obvious answer to your question. But in 2023, we made a decision even during these very lean periods, we had to invest in the development of BoursoBank because we have an asset, a strategic asset that has a huge value over time. And of course, when we put it in the Excel file, it didn't really make sense right away, but we realized that over time, it would be very, very valuable to us.

And it has a capacity development that could be -- end up being one of the biggest banks in France. So first of all, it needs to be a very rational and mathematical decision. And then then we have to think about it through a strategic viewpoint. And of course, this also have to take into consideration the specific context of the companies that we're talking about.

So today, certain decisions are very difficult. But we also have our own assets, for example, [indiscernible], BoursoBank. And these are assets that we have that other banks do not have.

Thank you very much Francis from Societe Generale. So I want to speak about the employer parameter, and I'm surprised that you haven't spoken about the work from home because that's one of the reasons why we had a very bad score.

And then for the CEO, how are you going to be able to work at Total and at SG?

So now working from home. So I don't really know what your question is for the working from home. I can't really answer a question that you haven't really asked. Of course, in the barometer, there is an element related to work from home. And it's not -- and it is important. My -- the choice that I have made, however, is to not use that as a scapegoat because I could have just said to you, for example, I could just completely say that the barometer is not really useful in coming up with -- is not a good measure of other very specific and deeper things and say that the issues that we have with the barometer is just because of the work from home.

So I'm making the choice of being more sincere in the way that I answer you. Yes, working from home is a decision that we have made. And I've already said it in the past, it comes from the will to harmonize things within the bank. There are 6,000 people who will have twice what they had -- 2x more days of working from home than they had in the past. Yes, a lot of people, specifically those who work at the headquarters will have a reduction of working from home days, some 2 or 1 days a week, so 20%. But on the same time, there are 6,000 people in France that will have twice as much as they had in the past. So that's something that's important to keep that in mind.

And then there are 2 other reasons. 30 years now, I've been working in many different businesses. I started perhaps not at the very bottom of the ladder, but not too far from the bottom of the ladder. So occupied many different positions in front office and management in different countries. And I think I have a rather extensive experience of not only my job, but the jobs that we have within Societe Generale, right?

And so I am convinced that we need especially in an environment of change, right, of competition. And by the way, I mentioned this also an environment of technological change also. We need to work on site. We need to have the interaction because this is how we will make the good decisions, the best decisions. And it's this -- it's everything that is not bureaucracy, everything that is not technological that's a human factor basically that will make difference.

And finally, over 100,000 employees work for Societe Generale over the world. I don't have the precise figures, but thousands of employees because they decide to retire or because they decide to go work elsewhere and then thousands of hires of young people every year. And I haven't found our team. My team have not found a solution to in an efficient way the culture of our company, the history of the company -- the historical culture of the company and all the skills, the excellency, the expertise that are so important in our business to ensure the high level of performance.

And once again, in this environment of change, right, in the environment of changing our business, the economy and technology. So taking all of this in mind, we decided that we needed to make this decision. And yes, we assume this decision. And again, I mean, we move from 2 to 1. So it's still 20% of work that can be done from home. And also, as I said, 6,000 people who have seen their double -- their time of work from home double.

Now regarding the [indiscernible] fine I'll very brief. So this is an ongoing inquiry covering 2018 to 2022. We try to improve what needed to be improved. There is also a certain number of aspects that are still being looked into as to what should be applied in terms of the rules and regulations. So well, perhaps, we will see to appeal.

I don't know. We'll see. I mean we have processes, collective processes, individual processes to deal with these issues, a company of over 100,000 employees managing EUR 1.3 trillion that is all over the world.

And regard Total, I mean, this is quite standard in France and in Europe for executives of companies to be a member of one Board if the are executives, right? And why? Because this, in a way, creates value. well, I hope, right, create value for the company. I will be joining as a director, but also in the business that we work in.

I mean as a banker, it's not a bad thing to be in touch and closely in contact with other businesses and more specifically, in my case, with Societe Générale -- with Total to learn from their experience to learn from what they do. So this is a rather standard practice. There is an interest for Total. There is an interest for our company, and our Board is very happy to benefit from the experience of other executives who are directors of Societe Generale and to allow us to consider different points of view.

It makes, I believe, the discussions that we have with the Board of better quality. And if I may add one thing, the point of view of the Board who approved this choice and accurate statistics. So I looked at the current executives who have been in the position for 3 years, 70% are Board members of other companies and half of these are CEOs. So I'd say that actually over 80% of the executives do this common practice.

Okay. One or 2 last questions perhaps.

I'm Gillette [indiscernible] I represent SFOC and NGO solutions for our climate. The Board's response to our written question on methane carriers. The total emissions are increasing for the company. So the questions anyway are has Societe Generale fixed a threshold regarding emissions of LNG maritime freight.

And do you believe that the objective is in line with the 1.5-degree objective? And your sector policy, oil and gas is limiting the financing of oil fields and LNG terminals. Would it also justify stopping the financing of projects such as gas production, but not the transport of this gas?

Right. Well, perhaps I could say 2 words. about intensity, intensity regarding the overall emission, right? So we try to consider intensity. Why? Well, because in a certain number of sectors, namely the one hand. We believe that intensity is a better criteria. Why? Well, because in all these sectors, we do not try to lend less money, but we want to lend the money in a better way because if you take in criteria, the overall amount of emissions.

So you can actually reduce the amount of emissions, not because you are more virtuous, right? But because you just reduced your portfolio, right? So what we are trying to do is not reducing our activity in this sector. This is a sector that we want to continue to develop. But what we want to do is allow -- help our clients to be greener in a way, right, in their approach.

So the intensity is -- well, sorry, same portfolio, the intensity is decreasing because as we go on, practices are improving and more environmental friendly, let's say. So in 10, so we take 10 sectors for which we have a number of objectives, trajectory objectives. In most cases, intensity is the criteria that was chosen. In some sectors, we do not only have an intensity criteria, but also objectives in terms of nominal oil -- upstream oil and gas production and coal.

But for all the other sectors, it's the intensity criteria that we consider, and we believe it is the right one. Obviously, I understand the second part of your question, which is to say, well, isn't it paradoxical to say that, okay, you're trying to be conservative or rather exclude a certain number of infrastructures, LNG infrastructures, but not the carriers.

But regarding the infrastructures, well, there are 2 things to consider. When there is also a production because this also needs to be considered, there is another objective that we've set ourselves to not lend to oil and gas upstream projects. So when there is oil and gas upstream linked to the LNG infrastructure, we no longer finance them. But it's nonconventional gas for which we also have exclusion criteria. For the methane or LNG carriers, we don't have these exclusion criteria, right? So yes, in other words, what we do is that we have a global policy with the intensity criteria.

I will take One last question, perhaps.

Second row.

I'm a shareholder and a client, BursoBank client. One of your branches, which is at the end of my question, if I may this way. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the presentations, for the forecast, for the new road map, which you've been working on since 2023. I'm going to be talking about very specific points here regarding Societe Generale and their shareholders.

Now the Treezor was acquired in 2019. Is this still an asset of Societe Generale, if this company has been sold because in January -- as of January, this was the only information that we have. What are the financial -- what is the financial structure of the sale because this company has had a certain number of sanctions or penalties because of its losses.

The accounts that have been opened within Societe Generale without any financial assets being paid into these accounts because they are being paid to the Treezor Company, right? I think that these funds are being managed by thousands of people for STC. And this is not -- this does not comply with the French law 1970.

Is Societe Generale managing the EUR 1 million of these STCs in this Treezor branch, which I would like to know if you have sold or not.

Okay. I will try to answer this in a very short manner. So my answer is this. When you sell an asset, right, you sign an agreement, a protocol memorandum and then you close, right? So we signed and we announced this sale of this asset with the 15 others that I mentioned earlier on -- as I mentioned earlier on, sorry. So there is regulated activity. So there is a process and with obviously the -- let's say, the various authorities being involved.

Now we are not going to obviously mention anything about the financial structure of this operation because we are not entitled to do so. So not much that I can add regarding this. We are still owners of this company. And the rules that apply to this company in terms of they don't have the technicality to be honest. But any regulation that applies to this asset in France or anywhere else applies, right?

And we obviously abide by the rules and regulations that's -- any normal financial institution, right? So nothing special or specific to add and the operation is still ongoing.

Right. Well, thank you very much. Let's now proceed to the next part, namely the presentation and vote on resolutions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll now outline the purpose of each of the resolutions proposed by the Board of Directors. The full text of each resolution is included in the [indiscernible] pack, right. Voting on the resolutions will take place using text provided at the entrance. Please do not forget to confirm your vote. The results of the votes on the resolutions will be displayed on the screen.

Resolution is 64 corresponding to 600 million shares held by 30,000 shareholders represented out of the total shares carrying voting rights. So first resolution is the approval of the consolidated annual -- sorry, for the 2025 financial year.

And do not forget to vote your votes.

[Voting]

Vote is closed.

Approved. 99% in favor. Second resolution resolution is approval of the company accounts for 2025. Vote is open.

[Voting]

The vote is over. Resolution is approved 99.2%. Sorry, to the amount of EUR 1.61 per share, of which EUR 0.61 has already been paid as an interim dividend. The remaining EUR 1 will be paid on the 3rd of June 2026. And the voting is open.

Don't forget to validate.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. So the fourth resolution is the approval of the statutory auditor's report on regulated agreements.

Voting is open. Sorry, report does not mention any arrangements. Please confirm your votes.

[Voting]

The voting is closed. Resolution adopted 99.79%. Fifth resolution, the remuneration policy of the Chairman of the Board of Directors. This policy has remained unchanged. Voting is open. Please do not forget to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted 93.48%

[indiscernible] Sixth resolution. Remuneration policy for the Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer. [indiscernible] presented explained. Voting is open. Please do not forget to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Resolution is adopted. 73.7% votes in favor. Seventh resolution, remuneration policy for directors was presented by [indiscernible]. The voting is open. Please confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Vote is closed -- voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. 93.63 votes in favor. Eighth resolution. The approval of Increase in the special directors. Voting is open.

[Voting]

The voting is closed. Resolution adopted with 92.64% votes in favor. The ninth resolution is resolution is the approval of the information relating to the remuneration of each corporate officer presented by by [indiscernible]. The voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote. p

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution adopted. 92.7% votes in favor. the 10th Resolution is the approval of the remuneration paid in year 2025 or awarded for 2025 to Mr Lorenzo Bini Smaghi. The remuneration is unchanged. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. 93% votes in favor. 11th resolution is the approval of the remuneration paid during the year 2025, in respect of 2025 to Mr. Slawomir Krupa. voting is open. Please remember to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. 91.44% of the votes are in favor. 12th resolution is the approval of remuneration paid during the year 2025 to Mr. Pierre Palmieri and the voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution adopted. 91.96% votes in favor. And resolution #13, this is advisory opinion on remuneration paid in 2025 to regulated people. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution adopted. 97.84% votes are in favor. 14th resolution is the ratification of the cooptation of the Mrs. Laura Barlow as Director and renewal of her term of office for 4 years. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution adopted. 98.06% of votes. 15th resolution, appointment of Dame Clara Furse as Director. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Dame Clara Furse is appointed with 98.79% of votes. 16th resolution. Reappointment of the Mr. Mr Jérôme Contamine as director. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Mr. Contamine is reappointed with 95.98% of votes. Resolution 17 reelection of Ms. Diane Côté’ as director. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Madam Côté’ is reelected with 96% of votes. Resolution 18, this is the Authorization to buy back shares. This is same resolution every year, duration 18 months, 10% of share capital, maximum purchase price increased from EUR 75 to EUR 150 per share. Voting is now open. Please remember to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted with 98.39% of votes. Resolution 19 is the extraordinary part. This is the Delegation to the Board of Directors to increase the -- to maintain the preemptive subscription rights. Voting is now open.Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution adopted with 94.17% of votes. 20th Resolution. Delegation to the Board of Directors to increase share capital with the removal of pre-emptive

subscription rights with the [indiscernible] 10% share capital. Voting is now open. Please remember to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted with 95.37% of votes. Resolution 21, delegation to the Board of Directors to increase the share capital in consideration for contribution income with a limit of 10% of share capital income. Voting is open. Please remember to confirm your vote.

[Voting]

Voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted with 95.17% of votes. So now Resolution 22, delegation to the Board of Directors to issue super subordinated bonds convertible into shares if the group has a CET of less than 5.125%. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution was adopted at 93.5%. 23rd resolution, authorization of capital increases reserved to employees, capped at 1.5% of share capital, discount 20% Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted at 98.79%. 24th resolution, delegation to the Board of Directors to make free allocation of performance shares to regulated and equivalent persons limit 1.15% of the share capital, of which 0.5% is for executive directors. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted at 95.66%. 25th resolution. Delegation to the Board to allocate the charge of performance to individuals [ unlisted and similar ]. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 98.29%. 26th resolution. Authorization granted to the Board of Directors to reduce the share capital by canceling shares, limit 10% of the share capital for a period of 24 months. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 98.03%. 27th resolution, amendment to the Articles of Association, Article 7 in the event of cooptation, a director whose cooptation is ratified by the Annual General Meeting shall be reelected for a term of 4 years. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 99.67%. 28th resolution. Amendment to the Article of Association, Article 7, the director representing employee shareholders shall have 2 alternatives of different genders instead of just one. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 99.59%. So article 29. Amendment to the Articles of Association, Article 13, removal of the possibility of holding the offices of Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer concurrently. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted at 99.59%. 30th resolution on proxies. Voting is open. Don't forget to confirm.

[Voting]

Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted at 99.73%.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for voting. Thank you for your trust. Next year, on Thursday, the 13th of May here at the [indiscernible], we will see you again for the next general assembly. Please don't forget to return your tablet.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Société Générale First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. I will now hand over to Mr. Slawomir Krupa, Chief Executive Officer. Sir, please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today on what I know is a busy morning. Leo and I are very pleased to present our results for the first quarter, in what is the final year of our current strategic road map. You know the volatility of the environment we operate in, it's complex to say the least. And yet, once again, continued our strong momentum in Q1 '26. Here are some of the highlights that demonstrate how we are progressing with discipline towards the targets we have set for 2026.

We delivered a strong profitability with a RoTE of 11.7% in Q1 '26, which is well above our full year target. Specifically, our revenues are slightly up by 0.3% versus Q1 '25 on a reported basis and up 4.4% at constant perimeter and exchange rates. As you know, our absolute commitment to cost reductions continues to yield results, further decreased our costs by minus 6% versus Q1 '25 and minus 2.6% at constant perimeter and exchange rates, translates into a cost-to-income ratio of 60.9% or 57.6% when linearizing IFRIC 21 taxes, which were fully paid in Q1 '26, in line with our end of year target of a cost-to-income ratio below 60%.

We maintain a low cost of risk at 25 basis points for the quarter, and it is at the low end of our guidance for the year. We achieved this through rigorous risk management and the quality of our credit portfolio is strong. Finally, we maintain a solid capital position with a CET1 ratio of 13.5% at the end of the first quarter.

These results made possible by focused execution and discipline are what we expect of ourselves in delivering on our financial targets.

Now let me hand over to Leo to review our Q1 '26 performance.

Thank you, Slawomir, and good morning, everyone. Moving on to Slide 6, we can see the key drivers of the revenue evolution in Q1 '26. Group posted a 0.3% increase in reported revenues versus Q1 '25. First impact that we can see on the bridge, it's driven by the impact of disposals completed in 2025 with an overall impact amounting to minus EUR 154 million in Q1 '26. It's worth remembering that the overall revenue disposal impact for '26 versus '25 is largely concentrated in Q1 '26.

As a reminder, the main disposals completed in '25 were GAF private banking activities in the U.K. and Switzerland and Guinea Conakry. On the other hand, at constant perimeter and exchange rates, group revenues are strongly up by 4.4% versus Q1 '25.

Focusing on the businesses, revenues in French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance increased by 10.7% at constant perimeter and exchange rates, mainly driven by a strong momentum in net interest income, which grew by 13.8%. Revenues at Global Banking & Investor Solutions were slightly down this quarter by 0.5% at constant perimeter and exchange rates versus a very high Q1 '25 due to less conducive market conditions. Finally, revenues in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services continued to grow by 2.9% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

As Slawomir just stated, our commitment to reducing our cost base is absolute. And this is precisely what is shown in this slide. Our costs are decreasing by 6% between Q1 '25 and Q1 '26 on a reported basis and by 2.6% at constant perimeter and exchange rates. This decrease is resulting from disposals, which explain the variation of EUR 100 million, an FX impact of minus EUR 57 million, lower transformation charges as guided by EUR 62 million and a cost decrease of EUR 55 million, reflecting the savings generated quarter after quarter.

The result, the group's operating leverage is improving, as you can see on the right-hand side of the slide. Indeed, the group cost-to-income ratio is falling by more than 4 percentage points from 65% in Q1 '25 to 6.9% in Q1 '26 or 57.6% with IFRIC 21 linearization, which will already be below or below 60% 2026 targets.

One last important point I would like to highlight on this slide is that all pillars are within their 2026 cost to income ratio target.

Moving on to cost of risk on Slide 7. Cost of risk for the quarter stands at 25 basis points. This is at the low end of our 2026 guidance range between 25 and 30 basis points, thanks to our sound risk management framework. The cost of risk this quarter mainly comprises of Stage 3 provisions, which account for EUR 348 million and declined by 20% versus Q4 to '25. In stage 1 and 2 provisions, we had a limited net allowance of EUR 7 million, which conceals our prudent approach in an uncertain and complex environment, including forward-looking overlays relating to the geopolitical crisis, which were broadly offset by some reversals.

As a result, total outstanding in Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remained stable at a high level of EUR 2.9 billion, representing around 2 years of cost of risk. Overall asset quality, on the other hand, remains very solid, as illustrated by the NPL ratio at 2.75% in Q1 '26, decreasing when compared to both last quarter and last year. And finally, the net coverage ratio remains high at 82% in Q1 '26, stable versus Q4 '25.

Now turning to Slide 8, where we can see the evolution of our strong capital position. Group CET1 ratio stands at 13.5% at the end of Q1 '26, representing a strong buffer over MDA of around 325 basis points. It is stable compared to Q4 '25 level. Going through the bridge on the slide from left to right, retained earnings contributed to an increase of 20 basis points after accruing a 50% payout. Out organic growth represents an impact of minus 2 basis points given the evolution of market parameters during the last quarter, OCI and PVA represent an impact of minus 3 basis points.

As stated in the EUD, the consolidation of Bernstein activities in the U.S. had an impact of minus 6 basis points. And finally, we have regulatory and other impacts, which represent minus 7 basis points. In addition, as you can see at the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all other capital ratios are comfortably above the regulatory requirements.

On Slide 9, liquidity reserves remained high at EUR 334 billion in Q1 '26, with a balanced mix between cash and securities. The liquidity profile of the group remains strong with sound liquidity ratios. The LCR ratio stands at 149% this quarter, and the NSFR ratio was 117%, both well above regulatory requirements and in line with our targets. 55% of the 2026 long-term funding program has already been completed, driven by good access to liquidity in all currencies on the back of strong long-term ratings from all agencies.

The deposit base remains strong, and highly diversified. And overall, the loan-to-depo ratio stands at 76% at group level. On Slide 10, we show a summary of the P&L of the group for Q1 '26 which we will cover in more detail in the following slides.

Let's move now to the individual businesses, starting on Slide 12 with SocGen Network, Private Banking and insurance. In Q1 '26, loans outstandings were stable compared with last year. If we exclude state guaranteed loans, this is PGEs. Outstanding deposits fell by 2% versus Q1 '25, within the context of continued growth of retail savings and investment products. These off-balance sheet products contribute to the continued strong momentum in overall asset gathering. On one hand, Private Banking reached a record high of EUR 138 billion at the end of March '26, increasing by 6% versus Q1 '25.

On the other side, life insurance outstandings reached a record level of EUR 159 billion, increasing by 8% versus Q1 '25, thanks to record high net inflows.

Moving now onto BoursoBank. As we can see commercial performance remains very strong within the assets under administration gathering, which continued to grow steadily, reaching EUR 80 billion at the end of March or around EUR 9,000 per client. This represents a 15% increase versus Q1 '25, helped by the continued strong increase in deposits of 12% versus Q1 '25. Similarly, life insurance outstandings increased by 14% versus Q1 '25 with a high proportion, 48% of unit-linked products.

BoursoBank also saw record number of market orders at EUR 4 million. representing an increase of 30% compared to Q1 '25. On the lending side, total loans outstandings are up by 8% versus Q1 '25. BoursoBank serves now 8.9 million clients. This quarter, BoursoBank achieved the best NPS score in the French banking sector. Bank was also awarded the #1 position in customer relationship among French banks.

In Q1 '26, BoursoBank net income stands at EUR 92 million, well on track to reach the 2026 target of EUR 300 million. Finally, the RONE for the bank stood at 65.9%, a very good proof of the profitability of this model.

Looking now at the whole pillar on Slide 14. French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance posted a strong increase in revenues of 8.9% versus Q1 '25, which include a 12% growth in NII. At the same time, operating expenses fell by 4.6% from Q1 '25. As a result, the cost-to-income ratio stood at 59.7% in Q1 '26, which represents a substantial improvement of 8.4 percentage points since Q1 '25.

All in all, the net income stands at EUR 625 million for the quarter or 48.4% up versus Q1 '25, with the RONE at 13.7% versus 9.5% last year.

Let's move now to Global Markets and Investor Services on Slide 15. The Global Markets consolidated another good quarter compared to a high base in Q1 '25 with a revenue decrease of 3.9% versus Q1 '25 and a slight increase of 0.5% at constant currency. Equities posted a record quarter with revenues up 5.5% versus Q1 '25. We adjust for the material depreciation of the U.S. dollars versus Q1 '25, equity revenues would have increased by 10.9% at constant currency.

This sound quarter was supported by strong activity levels in flow products. Performance in financial activities was also strong. showing increased volumes in prime brokerage. In Fixed Income and Currencies, revenues declined by 18.2% versus Q1 '25 or by 15.1% at constant currency. Same as in previous quarters, we were impacted by our large weighting in rates Europe. Lower revenues resulted from a high volatility, tight spread environment, which limited our ability to monetize flows.

Lastly, Securities Services revenues grew by 7.7% versus Q1 '25 on the back of a strong commercial momentum in all of the key markets.

Let's turn now to Slide 16 on the evolution of Financing and Advisory. Revenues declined by 8.6% versus Q1 '25 and by 3.8% at constant currency. Revenues in Global Banking & Advisory declined by 10.7% versus Q1 '25 or by 5% at constant currency. The comparative reflects a strong base effect as Q1 '25 was our best Q1 ever, and it also reflects softer activity in Investment Banking.

Having said that, the commercial momentum remains solid and origination revenues continued to increase across key sectors, including infrastructure or telecom and media.

Lastly, in Transaction Banking and Payment Services, revenues declined by 2.4% versus Q1 '25 on a reported basis, but remained stable when adjusted for the currency impact. The strong commercial activity with sustained growth in corporate deposits was offset by the negative impact of interest rates.

And now moving to Slide 17 for the overall view of GBIS. At the pillar level, revenues declined by 4.9% versus Q1 '25. In the quarter, we maintained a disciplined cost margin management and the reduction of operating expenses by minus 1.9% versus Q1 '25, resulted in a cost-to-income ratio of 62.5% in Q1 '26. At the same time, cost of risk remained low at 12 basis points in Q1 '26, almost stable versus Q1 '25.

All in all, GBIS posted a net income of EUR 773 million in Q1 '26, down by 9.7% versus Q1 '25 and resulted into a high RONE of 18.3%.

Pivot now in International Banking in Slide 18. This quarter, the business posted higher revenues up 2% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. We saw a strong commercial momentum in both Czech Republic and Romania. Overall loans were up 6% and deposits 10% compared to Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. We observed stable revenues over this period mainly due to positive one-off on fee income in Q1 '25 in both countries, while NII continued to increase.

In Africa, mixed situations in geographies led to broadly stable outstandings in both loan and deposits versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rate. Revenues on the other hand, increased by 5% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates, thanks to higher level, both in NII and fees.

Moving on to financial Mobility and Financial Services in Slide 20. The division grew by 3.7% at constant perimeter and exchange rates. This is excluding [indiscernible], which was disposed in Q1 '25. Ayvens posted a revenue growth of 1.7% versus Q1 '25 at SocGen level, supported by higher margins. The strategic focus on profitability is paying off, with a strong margin at 587 basis points, up by 25 basis points compared to Q1 '25.

The normalization of results of used car sales is still ongoing, but partially offset by the lower level of depreciation adjustments. The used car sales results per car stood at EUR 470 in Q1 '26, within the target range of EUR 600 to EUR 200 for the year. When adjusted for nonrecurring items, the revenues in total decreased by 1.6% in Q1 '26.

Consumer Finance business posted a strong financial performance this quarter, with revenues up 13.9%, notably, thanks to better margins despite a challenging environment.

Now pillar level on Slide 20. Mobility delivered an increase in revenues of 2.9% in Q1 '26 versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. On the other hand, we maintain a very disciplined cost management, which can be seen in the strong decrease of cost by 5.3% in Q1 '26 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. As a result, the cost to income ratio improved significantly by 5.3 percentage points versus Q1 '25, standing at 53.7%.

Cost of rates this quarter stood at 40 basis points compared to 31 basis points in Q1 '25, which was a low base and included some write-backs. All in all, MIBS posted a net income of EUR 365 million, representing an increase of 21.6% versus Q1 '25 at constant perimeter and exchange rates, reaching a RONE of 13.7% up by 2.5 percentage points.

To conclude with these quarterly results, let's move on quickly to Slide 21 with the corporate center. This quarter, the disposal of real estate property in France was booking net profit or losses from other assets. As a reminder, in Q1 '25, the accounting impact from the disposals of SGAF private banking in Switzerland and the U.K. were also booked in net profits or losses from other assets.

Let me now give back the floor to Slawomir.

Thank you, Leo. Now with regards to sustainable development, we continue to pursue the ambitions we set in the decarbonization of portfolios, and we continue to deliver solutions to our clients facing new challenges. With the global transition lagging, for instance, the need to attract to climate events presents new challenges but also new opportunities. The United Nations study projects the demand for adaptation investments to reach more than $1 trillion per year by 2030.

Our deep expertise in climate transitions, our sector knowledge and our long-standing client relationships give us a unique position to be the partner of choice for our clients adapting to climate change. For instance, we developed unique solutions with regards to water, providing financing to landmark projects around the world, notably in destination and last scale water treatment projects.

We also supported one of the largest projects in the U.S. to establish new forests on lands that were not forest before, a process called forestation. All these efforts continue to be recognized by external stakeholders with top ratings and industry awards, disciplined execution, higher efficiency, higher profitability and consistent performance quarter after quarter. These are the cornerstones on which we deliver on our targets and continue to expect this from us because this is what we expect of ourselves.

Thank you very much. We will now open the Q&A session and kindly remind everyone to limit themselves to 2 questions per person. The floor is yours.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Tarik El Mejjad of Bank of America.

So 2 questions, please. The first one, I mean, it's good to see that earnings grew and you reported a good RoTE despite a weak CIB. And also the mix looks better with more sustainable, I would say, retail business in France. But I mean, can you still comment a bit on the CIB? Just to understand what worked and did not work in this quarter, especially in regards to the U.S. bank's performance. I know it's different geography and mix. But there were some good and bad volatility and how actually your business performed that environment?

And maybe you can comment on the FX effects from Q2 and how that could impact your business in the IB? And the second question is on BoursoBank. Thanks for sharing the net profit for the quarter. You are good on track for the EUR 300 million for this year, but we can't not notice that you've slowed down a bit the client acquisition. I mean the question is more to be fair on beyond '26, I understand how do you square or reconcile between big ambitions to grow clients in BursoBank and actually the profitability of this division.

Thank you, Tarik. So on the CIB, you see it in the figures. You have markets down 3.9%, which is a combination of a very strong record quarter for equities, which rode the market conditions, if you will, very well across the entire product suite and another performance of fixed income, which is due largely to the mix, right? So remember, our main business within our fixed income division is euro rates. And I'm sure you've noticed across the publications of most of our competitors that this particular business because of the moves in terms of rates, short-term rates in Europe and volatility was one which was dragging the performance down because basically the hedging conditions were much more difficult.

And so that's the heart of the answer. I'll point to another very big difference in the mix is that what we call principal commodities, which is a business which we used to run, I don't know, 6 years ago or so and which we closed back then, was a strong contributor to the fixed income mix of some of our competitors. So here, I mean nothing else than simply market conditions, which were particularly unfavorable to what is the biggest business we have in our mix.

So I just want to still point you to indeed, the RONE of that subdivision, markets and investors solutions, which is 25.4%. So that's for the market, sorry. And then in terms of the -- and you have a ForEx effect, indeed, and it's well seen, for instance, in the F&A numbers, which are roughly 10% down on a reported basis, which translates into a 5% down in -- at constant FX rates. And this is mostly explained by first of all, very high performance, a record quarter last year, the effects, as I just gave you the figures. And yes, slightly subdued market conditions in the pure IB space for obvious reasons.

But again, nothing structural or yes, particularly strong in terms of effect there. So going forward, I mean, we have a portion of our business, which is in CIB dollar-denominated. And of course, there will be impacts both ways, depending on what happens on the macro side on the FX front.

In terms of BoursoBank, I mean, yes, of course, there is a slowdown in acquisition, and this was exactly the commitment we made, which is to deliver a certain level of bottom line. And as I commented in the past, which also gives us the opportunity to challenge ourselves in terms of the acquisition costs, the acquisition strategy and so on and so forth. But indeed, in 2026, the mix that we chose to deliver is a mix where growth slows down significantly and where the profitability goes up significantly, as you can see in Q1.

Beyond '26, the BoursoBank assets and opportunity from a strategic standpoint is one of substantial growth and substantial profitable growth and this is how we will be managing this and at 10 million, 10 million clients, this is not a mature level for this asset. We believe that down the road, target in terms of number of clients on the French market for BoursoBank will be more 20% to 25%. It's going to take the amount of time it's going to take.

And the way to deliver this growth there'll be a way where we balance in a slightly different way, the growth versus the profitability. And we will be targeting basically the maximum amount of growth above a certain hurdle rate in terms of returns. And we will be discussing this in detail in September.

The next question is from Flora Bocahut of Barclays.

Yes. I'd like to ask a question on Bourso again. Obviously, thank you for providing us with the net profit number this year. this quarter, and it's a lot more than expected. Can I just ask you for more details around the P&L drivers of that performance? Because I see also you call out in the slide that you had a record number of market orders at Bourso, so I guess on the retail brokerage side. So can you maybe help us understand this improvement in the net profit within Bourso? How much is revenues, cost? What are the main drivers there?

And then maybe a broader question for you, Slawomir, if I may. The European Commission just finished the consultation period on the competitiveness of the banking industry. So I just wanted to ask you for your view there. What would you like to see happening later this year from the European Commission? What do you think we need to do to improve the competitiveness of our banking industry?

So on BoursoBank, can I start by saying you're talking about an improvement in profitability, but you didn't have the starting number, right? So you don't really know that. No, I'm kidding, of course. It is improving both on a reported and underlying basis, if you will, versus what we had in the past, why for a very simple reason because of the growth, which is twofold. It's an absolute growth, right, that we experienced last year at a very high pace. It's still a net growth in the number of clients this quarter. So that is obviously a driver of profitability in itself, but also the phenomenon of maturity of the client base.

And so we -- this is something we follow very closely. Every vintage in terms of acquisition year, if you will, has an improvement curve in terms of assets that clients leave with us and products and services that they purchase from us. And so as each and every vintage matures, this is a strong driver of increased revenues for BoursoBank.

Now I'm not going to give you the detailed speed. We're going to give you more color in September about this works, but I'm going to give you some color, which is it's a bank, right? It's a real bank, providing the entire suite of products. So -- and you see some of the figures about the deposits. You know that we're talking about deposits in the range of EUR 45 billion to EUR 50 billion, EUR 48 billion, if I remember well, and assets under administration, which are much higher above EUR 80 billion.

So this is obviously a key driver, right, of profitability, like for any bank. And then, yes, BoursoBank is also a leading broker online broker, and this is originally what the Bourso Ama was, and that's also supporting the profitability as well as upgraded portfolio, which is not a focus from a business mix perspective, but there is a credit portfolio, which also yield obviously NII and so on and so forth. And as you've seen, maybe, we're building constantly the product offering, both in terms of investment products, but also packaged deals for called for instance, BoursoBank for a more affluent clients who choose to bank even more with BoursoBank.

So there are multiple ways for us to make money there like in any bank. And to your point about the cost, while yes, servicing these 9 million clients with a little bit more than 1,000 people at a very, very low cost to serve, right? And the combination of all this, right, contains capital usage, strong growth, strong growth through acquisition and maturing of the client base over time and a very full-fledged offer, creates a lot of opportunities to generate money and because of the cost to serve at a very high level of only, as you can see.

In terms of the EU commission and competitiveness of the European banking sector, I mean, this could be a very long conversation, and I know you guys are busy today. So I think you are busy, always busy, but particularly today. And so I would point to in the end, we, I think, in the banking sector seek very simple things that the overall capital requirements across all the stack across all the buffers across all the ways, capital requirements are set in Europe. This is simplified, right?

We don't need 10 lines, we could live with 3, so to speak. It's an image that I'm using here that while simplifying, we also take a hard look at overlaps because it is obvious that between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, you have overlaps sometimes conceptual on specific lines of the requirements, right, and buffers and so on and so forth. But also profoundly by the sheer virtue that the increase of RWA consumption, the Pillar 1 and all kinds of other actions that will end game model requirements and so on and so on. The inflation of the underlying RWA obviously create a mechanical overlap because the Pillar 2 is expressed in the percentage of the Pillar 1, right?

And so what we want is the simplification, right? And the recognition, simply the recognition that they are inflationary overlaps in the mechanics. It's pretty simple, straightforward. Why? Because we believe that -- and you know the macro numbers in the last 15 years that European banks, as an industry are well capitalized and that -- in the end, the resilience is insured by both the existing level of capital and by sound practices in terms of risk management and sound practices in terms of supervisory functions. So that's a big one.

And there, we all believe that there is room to at least contain the inflation and hopefully, find mechanisms. I'm not saying it's easy from a regulatory or legislative perspective to find mechanisms to ease burden from this perspective. In order not to please us, although there's nothing wrong with that, but in order to make sure that Europe has the proper resources to support its growth agenda and the investment needs and investment financing gap that was well identified over the last couple of years.

This is the heart of it, right? And then in details, we can argue this or that technical aspect. But at the heart of it, this is what we, I think, all look for.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

Just the first one, if I could ask on French retail. And just to understand a little bit sort of given the inflation data going up and rate potentially as well, shot-term rates, what are your expectations for the impact of Livret A later this year, what's your sensitivity and sort of do you think this could create more terming out of deposits and change in the deposit mix and derail or that recovery in the NII?

My second question is on capital. Just to go back to your slide on CET1 bridge. Just a quick question, first of all, sort of what the regulatory impacts are? And then also like going forward, I mean, we're going to get more clarity around FRTB. Just wanted to know your thoughts a little bit about what your expectation is? And also just to confirm a little bit like the impact of the ECB systemic buffer which will raise that capital requirements for you, so just trying to think about how that impacts your distribution?

All right. I'll take the NII, I'll start on capital, and I'll give the floor to Leo for some more detailed elements. So on NII, as we've told you in the past, the positive trend that you see is fundamentally supported from an NII perspective by indeed a lowering cost of fund and in particular, the Livret A but overall, that was the trend and it is supporting in Q1 this and the repricing of the back book in the context where volumes are, let's put it at the strategic level are fairly stable, right, a little bit up.

Private clients a little bit down. I'm talking about the loans here, a little down in SMEs and so on and so forth, but broadly stable, same for the deposits, right? So this is the trend, and this trend caters for modest to moderate increase tailwind from an NII perspective for the foreseeable future. Now indeed, if inflation spikes up, the main direct impact is the increase of the rate of the Livret A and also potentially, and you're mentioning this in your question, impact on behaviors and therefore, on volumes, in particular, in terms of interest-bearing deposits across the board.

So here, two things. One, at the current level, so slightly above 2% of inflation knowing that the formula is 50% rate, 50% inflation, we have something which could be, right? We'll see what the situation is at that time, which could be a very, very slight increase of the Livret A pricing in August, which -- well, first of all, we already have in our trajectory, so to speak, in our budgeting exercise. But it's a really minor say, 10, 15, I mean, 10 basis points potential impact today, if we were to project what we see today. So not something significant, which brings me to the fact that if the inflation spikes somewhat slowly, right?

And obviously, if it goes down afterwards because -- let's imagine the conflict is shorter and that things normalize, et cetera. So this is really depending on the macro scenario. But if inflation spikes slowly than you have, in my view, also exit there, where you don't have a linear impact on the behavior of clients as this rate goes up, if the rate goes up slowly, right?

So that's the current assumption that we have. Obviously, taking everything I said today, if you have a different scenario, you will have different outcomes, right, if things were to move more significantly or faster. That's the situation. But again, today, in our central scenario, we don't see that dynamic that you experience -- we experienced right now in terms of NII to change substantially.

In terms of the capital, I'll address 2 aspects. So the regulatory -- the business as usual, we discussed that many times in the past in Europe with the supervisors. You have impacts going both ways. We had positive ones last year. This time, it's a few basis points the other way around. It's the, let's say, business as usual in terms of the supervisory actions in Europe.

And second thing from -- I'll let Leo comment more specifically the bridge again, and maybe on the buffer on the standing buffer that you referred to, but let me put it this way, with the kind, and this was the whole purpose of the strategy with the kind of buffers that we have, well, the answer is there will be no impact on distribution because we believe that currently at 325 basis points of CET1 above requirements, we have more than ample room to manage whatever headwinds happened on that front. And so no impact on distribution. Leo, maybe just...

Sure. I mean on the reg, I think it's clear. It's just normal course of business. Some quarters, we have some releases as we saw last year. Some quarters we have a few impact -- a few basis points of impact, but nothing out of the ordinary. On the other systemically important institution buffer, as you know, in Europe, we need to take the maximum of the GSIB and the OCII buffer. The GSIB is assessed by the IFRS B and the OCII. This is where the change has been. Also previously was assessed by the national regulators. So in our case, it was ACPR, and from this year onwards, it's the B, you can override on this buffer.

The buffer has increased. For us, it's 25 basis points. So because we're in the bucket #5 as many other banks in Europe, and this will come in the form of plus 12 basis points next year in '27 and another 12.5 basis points in '28. Obviously, this was well known, and it was already included in the group's capital trajectory and therefore, it doesn't change at all our mind with regards to the target for CET1 because it was already included as Slawomir just mentioned, the potential excess capital.

And FRTB, any thoughts?

Then, it looks like our concerns about level playing field are shared more and more, a wider group of decision makers, right? And I think this topic is going clearly in the right direction, but we like to a final written confirmation, so to speak, before we take this into account directly in our thinking. But things are going in the right direction, clearly.

The next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

I have two. So about the overlay, the you took in the quarter, which was offset by provision -- by releases, sorry, in Stage 1, Stage 2, how large was that? And how do you see the situation evolving? As in what oil price you're assuming, could you take some more in Q2? Any thoughts on that?

And then secondly, sorry, going back to BoursoBank, as Slawomir, you mentioned 25 million clients long-term goal. Does that imply also moving the current clients, the retail part, not all the clients, but the more retail part of your networks, on to BoursoBank? Or is that just organic growth that you envision for this asset?

Thanks for your questions. On the overlay, it's a simple answer. It's EUR 80 million. And it's within a view that today, the base case scenario we have is for the conflict to ease rather in the short term rather than medium term. And the macro impact to be contained. Yes, shaving off, say, 50, 75 basis points of GDP growth in Europe or in France, which we potentially already see happening, but something which is contained in nature in terms of depth, if you will, of the impact and something which does not trigger a monetary policy response. That's the base case scenario, right?

Then again, if this central assumption of the length of the duration of the conflict is proven wrong, well then, of course, the impact on both growth, on inflation, on supply chain and so on and so forth, and therefore, potentially on more sticky inflation and therefore, a policy response will be higher, right? And therefore, the impact on GDP would be higher as well. In which case, obviously, we will reevaluate that. We will obviously evaluate that also in Q2 going more into the details because the way we work on forward-looking phase or assumptions is among other things by looking at the in-depth analysis of this potential sector-specific impact, that's the logic of the modeling that we have there.

And so we will be updating this constantly. But within our current central scenario, we don't believe that the impact would be very significant. And one last comment here, I want to point you to the fact that in the end, we look at this is that at central piece of our risk management strategy, which is diversification, business perspective, from geographies perspective, from a industry sector perspective is the key. And we believe that from this perspective, we'll rather well have, so to speak, to go through all kinds of scenarios.

In terms of the BursoBank, I mean, my statement is a strategic one. And so it means that we're talking about -- here about what is the size of this banking asset in France at, let's say, maturity, right? So today, in that strategic long-term statement, there are no assumptions about the transfers from the SGRF, like our historical network.

The next question is from Andrew Coombs of Citi.

Just a couple of follow-ups from me, please. Firstly, on the markets revenues, I think you addressed fixed income. But if I could just touch upon equities, this is the first quarter where you had the full consolidation of Bernstein U.S. And I don't think that's in the year-on-year 11%. So it looks like your equity revenues were probably flattish, if you were to exclude that would be my guess, but happy for you to clarify that point. So perhaps you could just touch on why your year-on-year equity progression is also less than the counterparts?

And then second question, French retail, just coming back on the cost opportunity. You've obviously seen good progression on cost but can you just touch a bit more on how far you are through planned launch, closures, how the natural attrition run rate is looking in terms of voluntary redundancies? Any more color you can give there would be helpful.

Thank you. In terms of equities, the way you should think about this is that the biggest difference here, let's say, peers, but then of course, it depends if you're looking at the Americans or the others, but biggest difference is, one, obviously, the share of the U.S., right, in our business is smaller -- significantly smaller, of course, than the U.S. banks and smaller than some of our European peers. So that's one explanation factor for the trend that you described. That's one.

And second, it's the prime brokerage business, right, which is different, first of all, in size and obviously, in a quarter like the one we've just closed, that business is a big contributor at some of the other houses in terms of revenues. And so it's both in size as far as we're concerned, in particular on the cash equity prime brokerage, but the second piece is also like the equity content in the prime business that we have is also lower at our shop versus the big American peers and some of the European ones that are active in prime brokerage. So this is the heart of the explanation, indeed.

And remember also a strong, strong performance last year in the context of liberation Day and so on and so forth and all the stress that was happening that was happening around the tariff narrative back then.

In terms of the costs, it's -- hopefully, you see it in the figures, we're working hard across all the topics, right, from efficiency, in terms of the structure and nature and sheer efficiency of the spend in technology, to very granular thousands of initiatives across the entire group, aim at looking at everything that can be done better from an efficiency perspective. So I would say we're full steam on something which is not only a plan with a list of things to do but also something which changes the way we operate the firm, the way we engage basically in terms of spending.

And it is producing results, which are structural and which will continue to fuel both our performance in terms of reaching the target that we have for the year. Longer term, and again, we'll have a deeper discussion in September, but we will continue to fuel longer term. Our focus on efficiency, which remains, as you know, and you've heard me say this many times, I want to focus for the firm.

The next question is from Chris Hallam of Goldman Sachs.

I've just got 2, I think, quick numbers questions left. So BRD, the disclosure in constant currency, I just wondered how we should think about BRD contribution in reported terms for the rest of the year given the FX moves? Anything we should think about carefully there? And then second, the RWA disclosure in GBIS. I just wondered if you could give us any steer on how you expect leverage exposure in the markets business to trend either this year or over the next years? I appreciate that. Maybe that's a question for September, but just any comments you have on leverage growth -- leverage exposure growth versus growth in that business.

I'll start with the leverage exposure growth. You have -- I mean, strategically, we do plan on -- and we said this already, and there is an RWA growth on an organic basis forecasted for this year, notable amount of this is allocated to GBIS, mostly on F&A, but not only. And from a leverage ratio perspective, we don't plan to adjust our current targets and our current delivery, which as you've seen is fairly consistent around 4.4% in terms of the ratio, and that's our policy. We don't plan on changing that in any way, right, any substantial way, certainly not a strategic way.

In terms of the BRD, Chris, can you just -- I'm not sure I got the exact question. Can you repeat it, please?

There's just a big move in FX, if I think about the year-over-year consideration through the rest of this year. And obviously, the numbers you're giving in the presentation around constant currency. So I was just trying to square the disclosure between what they give in local currency and what you're getting in constant currency and trying to figure out if you already know setup head how to think about loans and deposits through the rest of this year on a reported basis.

Listen, I'll ask the team to get back to you precisely. I mean there's nothing strategic going on there, but let me ask the team to address this with your directly.

The next question is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

Just on the BoursoBank numbers. It seems pretty clear that the improving profitability was driven by the falling customer acquisition costs. in the quarter. I'm just trying to quantify potentially the uplift on the revenue side, which would seem to me like you spent probably last year something like EUR 230 million to EUR 250 million on customer acquisition costs, if my estimates are right. So if that can fall say by half, that's a pretty sizable uplift, but it would get you probably on my numbers into something like a low 40s cost to income for this year. Is there an ideal cost-to-income ratio on a forward basis with which you'd run this business?

I mean, you're already delivering a pretty stellar RONE, but I'm just trying to think through the, I suppose, the uplift to the numbers in the near term versus outer year delivery.

So let me put it this way, right? I mean, without answering directly your question, I'm going to give you color and point to a few elements, which is we've been consistently saying that BoursoBank was profitable in the last few years, right, actually throughout the trajectory of the CMD. You know and you see this in acquisition numbers that in order to deliver on the commitment that we have in terms of the bottom line of EUR 300 million, which is EUR 400 million of top line and basically another EUR 200 million bottom line is a EUR 400 million roughly top line.

Well, you see more or less what the uplift is, right? And indeed, we commented on this in the past, it is a substantial input into the overall cost to income of the entire pillar, right, RPBI. So this is -- these are the numbers, right? Going forward, and again, we'll give you significantly more details in September. But the logic is not so much to the cost to income as the RONE, right? So the idea is we'll find the right balance, and we will discuss that in September, between maximizing growth because this is what this asset is. It's a powerful, extremely efficient growth asset that is building, not only delivering, but building a platform for high profitability on the French retail market.

And so we have half to from a strategic standpoint, fully lean into the potential that this asset represents for the group, but also as the maturity of the overall organization in there, so to speak, has materially increased at now 9 million clients while delivering above a certain hurdle level of RONE and that is going to be discussed in September. But that is the -- that's the minimum RONE. And then above that, everything is going to be invested in growth. But again, maybe with a better mix in terms of how we do this, right, maybe not only fees but some different channels as well.

So we are challenging ourselves in terms of the cost of acquisition in absolute terms and also in the mix of that cost of acquisition, also observing and paying attention to our competitors.

Slawomir, seems very interesting indeed and it's -- I asked the question because if you look at Q1 earnings from Bourso, it's probably in my estimation, not far off of what you would have earned is probably a bit below what you would have earned in the full year of '25, so I think it's a very interesting point for September.

Next question is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

I just wanted to ask about the RWA growth, especially in the GBIS division. I guess the number of players saw quite meaningful increase here that also led to somewhat more stronger revenue growth. And I mean, I guess you could have said we put less capital to work, and that's why our revenues are maybe not as strong. but the fact that you didn't mention it, is that basically just not the driver. It's just down to your business mix and positioning? And then following on from the RWA growth, I think you guided previously for this year, you expect organic growth to take of around 25 basis points of the core Tier 1 ratio, Q1 was 7 basis points.

So do you think the growth that might be the headwind to CapEx from growth at the current stage might be somewhat lower than you consider?

So bear with me as I tried to answer your question and you tell me if I got you well. So on the first one, yes, I mean you have allocation of capital. But indeed, in Q1, the -- I mean, long story short, the 2 big impacts are the ones that you're pointing to, which is the mix impact on the fixed income side and which is not, again, driven by either way by capital, right? I mean it's a hedging conditions mostly and the nature of the commercial activity. And again, with the mix that we described without the principal commodities business, in particular, which I think is a big differentiator this quarter.

And the second thing is the FX and some, let's say, slowing down on the fee business, which is also not a intensive in GBIS. So it's exactly, I think, what you said, which is the mix and the FX and the slowing down of the noncapital intensive businesses, which explained the trend of Q1.

In terms of the organic growth for the year. I mean we have an allocation of organic RWA to organic growth, which is 2% growth this year. And that's it, right? I mean it's going to be generating revenues at a significant marginal rate of return. But obviously, right? I mean just for the sake of the reasoning, if we had other quarters where either hedging conditions or a combination of hedging conditions and fee income, noncapital-intensive fee income would be subdued because of market conditions, you would see similar patterns, right, if I got your question well.

The next question is from Jacques-Henri Gaulard of Kepler Cheuvreux.

Well done for the quarter actually despite where the stock price is doing. Two questions. The first one even if it didn't matter before you took over, Slawomir, you're now operating with minority interest, which represents about EUR 1 billion of net profit annualized. Isn't that really something that starts to bug you and which is not effectively quite a major issue in getting this investment case further?

And the second question really I'm surprised. I mean the economic data we're getting are really bad. I mean we have the Brent at $125. We have German employment going up. France is really going more or less nowhere. And isn't that in your interest considering the culture you have and what you have shown so far to really play a lower profile by the time you get to the CMD rather than going all out with targets that would be difficult to actually meet?

A question about September actually and the targets for the next plan. But I'll start with this one. Listen, I mean, don't you know us?

Yes.

So you should expect from us what we have delivered so far. Let me put it this way, yes. In terms of how we think about targets, how we think about the path of the bank, et cetera? We want to be a reliable partner, right, to our clients, our investors and to all our stakeholders, right? And that's the paramount in how we think about strategic planning. So that's for September.

And in terms of the minorities, I mean, we've had this conversation many times, in the end is taking a situation which is indeed an inheritance. How do we take it forward, right? And you know the parameters, right? And we've been clear in the past that the usage of capital and excess capital has to be rational from a return perspective and from a strategic perspective. And so consideration of both the implied prices changing the situation that you just described, plus our vision in terms of the balance in terms of concentration risk in the in the business mix of the group lead us to leave things as they are as of now, especially in the context where, so far, other uses for returning the capital to shareholders were clearly more efficient, right? So I mean, you know the conversation we've had it in the past, but is this theoretically optimal? Yes, not.

The next question is from Sharath Kumar of Deutsche Bank.

Two, please. Firstly, on asset quality, with oil prices around $120 a barrel, assuming it kind of persists for some time, interested in hearing your thoughts on any direct risks for SocGen? And when it comes to Middle East exposures, previously, you had said single-digit billion exposures. Can you give more color on any risks you foresee if the current conflict persists?

And secondly, a follow-up to the French retail NII. Previously, I remember NII sensitivity of around EUR 50 million for a 25 basis point change in rates, would this still be the case? Or is there any change in your hedging policies?

Thank you. On asset quality. So again, direct impact of sustained high prices in terms of energy is twofold. On the one hand, it's slightly supportive of some of the businesses in the markets because while we don't have principal commodities, we do have our prime services business an exposure to the commodities markets. And therefore, it's a slight positive from this perspective. The implied volatility when it is within range is also, as you've seen in the past, [Audio Gap] to some extent, this quarter, [Audio Gap] in equities, in particular, is also moderately [Audio Gap] the growth rate will go down, right?

Our assumption is by 50 to 75 basis points for the Eurozone across the various countries. And so it's going to weigh a little bit on the asset quality. But again, in that sense of not that much in our view, but it is going to weigh on the volumes, right? And on the volumes in terms of business opportunities. So that's the central scenario. And then, again, you have all the colors of the -- that you can imagine, all the shades that you can imagine, depending on how long the conflict lasts, how high the prices are how big the impact on the macro side is.

But today, we don't expect at this point, something that would be particularly problematic in terms of asset quality. In terms of the Middle East, it's EUR 8 billion exposure, very diversified in terms of, I mean, geographies within the Middle East. And very importantly, it's also very high-grade exposure as far as we're concerned and often secured.

So this is something which is extremely contained, and we feel comfortable with that. In terms of the NII, the sensitivity, yes, it's so true. I mean we have an overall sensitivity for a parallel shift up of the curve, which is a positive to rates going up. So that's the heart of the matter. Although I want to highlight that as far as retail is concerned, we have a policy, which is one of maintaining a very low sensitivity for this business, right? So hedge year 1 and year 2 of the NII to a very, very low sensitivity. When I say low here, it's close to 0, right? That's the policy.

And so the purpose of this one is really to follow in a smooth way whatever the rates are doing into the philosophy of the hedging there. But overall, there is a sensitivity of positive sensitivity for a parallel shift of the curve sometimes shift up.

The next question is from Matt Clark of Mediobanca.

So 2 questions, retrading old ground, I'm afraid. Firstly, going back to the Financing & Advisory division, risk-weighted assets there have increased 9% over 2 quarters, if I've got it right. Is that the bulk of your kind of additional deployment there done? Are you happy with your capital deployed in that business? Or should we expect it to keep going up? And what kind of lag until that capital deployment reaches kind of run rate profitability and revenue-generating terms?

And then second question is on French Retail Banking net interest income. Earlier, you described a modest tailwind on NII from the, I guess, the rollover effect on the back book, but you've seen what I would think is much more than a modest tailwind over the past couple of quarters. Would you agree with that, i.e., we should impute that the growth we've seen over the last couple of quarters has been driven more by other factors rather than purely the rollover tailwind?

It's -- in terms of the F&A question, it's -- to be clear, the one of the -- if not today, the preferred spot for organic capital deployment. So you should expect us to be within the overall guidance that we have but fairly focused on allocating capital to this division. The lag is in terms of reaching the full return on these investments. It's -- I mean, it's dependent a little bit on the market conditions, right, especially on the fee generating businesses. And so here, there is some macro cyclicality to the equation, if you will. But it's fairly quick on the other hand, right?

So in normal market conditions, we should continue to generate the kind of NBI and goodwill that we are used to generate there, which, on a marginal basis, right, are driving substantial returns, net returns on a marginal basis because of the fixed cost base that we have there, right? And then obviously, the variable being post the modest investments and variable compensation. So the high operating leverage investment spot for us.

In terms of the NII, well, let me put it this way. Yes, I can't disagree with your statement, meaning 10% because if you remove the effect of this French thing, which is called Tcell, where you have regularly updates to duration metrics. It's a French peculiarity. And this quarter, it's a positive effect, which brings down the 13% that you see to something closer to 10%. So safe for that aspect, yes, 10% is characterized by more than modest or moderate. And it is mostly driven, like we said, by the repricing that we were able to make.

Remember, we were also very, very conservative in terms of mortgage origination at the wrong time, if you will, in the past, in the last 3 years, we were extremely conservative from this perspective. And so we are helped by that -- these conservative decisions from the past as well in terms of how the back book reprices. That's another one. And finally, yes, volumes which are fairly stable, but with a mix, which is slightly more favorable because we have a little bit of growth on the private side -- private client side and a little bit of a decrease on the SME side. The mix, and yes, it's better than modest or moderate we're suggesting.

The final question, sir, is from Alberto Toni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

I just had one on SRD, do you think that SRDs can be at this point in time, an opportunity to further optimize your capital or perhaps do you fear that given the private credit market conditions somehow it may be more complicated to refinance the existing position that you already have outstanding when they come to maturity?

Thank you. So two comments. First, as you know, we've talked about that in the past, we have historically not been, let's say, as active in this market as, let's say, the average of the industry, have been active. We are active. It's business as usual for a bank to do this. But we were, on average, less active than the average of the industry. And two, we mostly looked at these transactions from a risk management perspective and not from a capital management perspective, which doesn't mean that people are wrong if they do it for capital management reasons, but that's the nature of how we worked on this in the past.

Addressing your second question, yes, yes, we will continue to work on them. And now we have no concerns in terms of the capacity or pricing for a very simple reason is that, again, on the private credit side, you look at the actual defaults and the actual credit data as far as private credit is concerned, the sector is still -- I mean, for every significant and good player that is still extremely healthy, right? So actually, we don't see beyond the noise about gating and so on and so forth. We don't see today a material change in the dynamics of that market, right?

And lastly, when you do an SRD, obviously, your own track record matters. And I would want to point you to our track record in terms of net cost of risk over the last say, 3 or 4 decades overall on the books that are usually subject to SRTs, and it's a very strong track record, which obviously is a selling point when you either refinance or structure in ties.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time. I know again that you were very particularly busy today. So good luck with that. Thank you very much for your time, and talk to you soon. Bye-bye.

Thank you. Bye-bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's Societe Generale conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here for our first fireside chat with Slawomir Krupa, CEO of Societe Generale. Slawomir, thank you for being with us.

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

I have a few questions. But first, I want to ask a question to the audience, actually, a polling question. So, what's most important for SocGen's share price performance over the coming 12 months? Is it the launch of a new buyback in the second half, beating on French retail, disposals, delivering the cost income below 60%, the key target for '26, the CMD or asset quality. A lot to choose from, let's say.

We don't have all of the above?

Of course, the CMD.

Yes. We're working on that. I don't know. No spoilers today, I think, but it depends on you.

I'll try. I'll try. We will get into some specific topics, but I need to start with a question on what's happening in the world. So Iran war pushing the oil price high, a lot of volatility, a lot of uncertainty. How is your business impacted by that?

So short term, the impact is not massive. Of course, because what happens is we have one set of things which we're certain of is that, it does impact quite profoundly, I think, sentiment across most asset classes one way or the other. And it obviously does impact the energy prices.

What we're not certain of, and frankly, we don't know anything about that is how long the war lasts. And how these two first statements I made are going to evolve over time. If the war is short-lived, so to speak, which, I guess, is still a scenario from a geopolitical fiscal standpoint. Well, then I think that it's going to be a significant blip but not much more than that, right?

If the war lasts long, you guys know that sentiment across both consumer and corporate and energy prices are about the most powerful drivers of macroeconomics, right? And from this perspective, the impact will be bigger, but it's going to happen later on. So that's how we think about this.

We navigate the volatility. We navigate the shifts we're just talking about this, like almost every day, there's a shift in the very short-term sentiment. So we're navigating this.

And from a strategic standpoint, it's back to a fundamental question of concentration risk. And in this particular case, our exposure to -- directly to Middle East is not significant. We're not disclosing the figure, but if you take some of the things we said about Middle East and Africa and some of the statements we made about the RWAs of our African subsidiaries. If you go through all these data, you'll discover that the exposure to Middle East is very small, a few billions actually, right?

So concentration risk. And from this perspective, we feel protected as far as the area is concerned. And now concentration risk is one of the key, key features of risk management, in my view, has always been.

And if I take most of the sectors that could be more heavily affected, none of them is higher than 1% of EAD, right? So we feel focused, concerned about the long-term impact on the macro of the world and some regions in particular, but also resilient.

Thank you. So if then I move on to a more strategic question. You've been CEO of SocGen for 3 years, and you started with different priorities, capital costs, you executed very quickly on the capital side, above 13%. What is your biggest strategic priority for 2026? So what's top of mind for you now aside from everything that's happening in the world?

Well, in the end, it is about increasing operating leverage for 2026, but frankly, as a long-term objective. And this is why we have the guidance that you know, which is growing revenues by 2% plus and reducing costs in absolute terms by 3%. And this continues to be the name of the game. It's somewhat obvious because it's both building intrinsic capacity to increase profitability as you grow, but also, obviously, to build in resilience as you decrease your cost base, right?

And so more specifically, delivering on all the targets of the CMD is obviously #1 priority. And in the sense, of 9.6% ROTE for 2025, excluding the exceptional items that supported our performance, we feel comfortable that we will reach the upgraded target we have for the ROTE above 10%. And it's going to stem from continued growth across the businesses of a strong capital base, right? So sound growth and cost of risk under control.

We maintain the guidance at 25 to 30 basis points. And support from lower cost of funding in French retail and let's say, the 1% to 2% underlying growth rate for most of the inventories, if you will, in the business. BoursoBank's objective to reach EUR 300 million is going to be supporting the top line in retail by roughly EUR 400 million and continued sound performance of our GBIS business, while Ayvens is going to basically finish the job and benefit from the synergies that we've been extracting from the deal. And so all these components will deliver the CMD objectives that we had set.

And if we talk about capital now, you have some excess capital. When you think about order of priorities for what to do with the excess capital, how do you think about distribution, organic growth or perhaps inorganic growth?

So as I said many times, our target ratio is 13%. So anything sustainably above is considered excess capital that needs a strategic decision to be made in terms of deployment. And so from a process standpoint, maybe first, we said at the last results publication that we would be addressing this topic of excess capital once a year at the Q2 release.

The message we wanted to convey is, one, that no need to speculate every quarter about what's going to happen, right? That's helpful, I guess.

Second message linked to the first one is that it's not a mechanical exercise, right? So we don't meet like every quarter and just see, okay, today, this is -- this is the ratio. Let's do something with excess capital. It's a strategic decision, the deployment of excess capital, and it needs some maturing, if you will. Right?

And so, I mean, the easiest way we came up with this is this idea that by the middle of the year where you also have a good understanding of what's happening in a given year in most circumstances, it's a good moment to make this decision.

And then it's a balance, theoretically the balance between the three opportunities that you mentioned, organic growth, inorganic and return to shareholders, but a very rational one, right? So growth on an organic basis, once you have the right capital base, which is the case today, is essential because it's our business, right? It's our business, it's our clients.

And when there are sound growth opportunities within an environment in terms of risks that is, let's say, normal through the cycle environment. It's a very good way to deploy capital because it builds long-term sustainability of the firm. And on a marginal basis, it's obviously, especially in some of our businesses, a very high return actually on the invested capital above 20%.

For instance, in the business like F&A, but frankly, in a lot of businesses, because the fixed cost nature of a lot of our businesses is helping with the operating leverage.

In terms of the return to shareholders, below or at book, at tangible book, it is a very compelling opportunity to deploy capital with no execution risk, which we obviously take into account comparing it to the other opportunities.

In terms of the inorganic, we're constantly looking at bolt-on acquisitions. The problem is if you want to stick to rigorous capital management and stewardship of capital, one, it needs to be meaningful from a strategic industrial perspective, so to speak. And it's not like this happens every day to come across these kinds of opportunities.

And the second point is, obviously, the price. And today, the combination of these two requirements, so to speak, doesn't yield much good file, so to speak. So that's how we think about this. But again, within the framework of, we are in the business of being stewards of this capital. This is a rational, precise fact and data-driven exercise.

Perfect. So I want to touch upon another hot topic, AI, artificial intelligence, which has taken center stage in the market. Starting from software going to different sectors, how do you see -- so let's start with the broad question. How do you see the opportunities or the threats to your current business model coming from AI?

So well, first of all, a bit of, again, process answer before going to the substance. It is a critical topic for everybody, right? So I'm stating the obvious here. But this led us a couple of years ago already to do two main things. One, to create a separate company, which we call SocGen AI, it's working only for us, but where we wanted to locate, if you will, some specific expertise and the capacity to look at the bank from the outside in. Right? Without all the, let's say, let's call them conflicts of interest of legacy approaches versus new approaches, et cetera. That's one.

And two, we have a pretty strong governance where the leadership team is involved, including myself on an operational basis to make sure that we focus the resources. It's always resources, it's always costs, et cetera, on the right topics, right? Because on AI, you can go very, very shallow and very, very wide, right? If you just opened, let's say, opened the box, right? So that's one.

On substance, I think that today, the level of reliability of the tools that you can put out or into your processes, combined with the level of regulatory, supervisory really expectations, right, in terms of the quality and documentation of your tools when it touches something that has a regulatory content, which, as you know, in our case, is virtually anything we do that such as clients or risk management.

Well, then the burden of proof, if you will, is so high today that we don't have in our industry, in my view, today, major applications at scale in production for major topics, right? We have tons of experimentation all over the bank. But I think this is something which is going to slow down real adoption, right, for a while.

Now on the flip side, and this is why we've made the decisions we've made. It is going to be a massive factor of change in our industry. Because in the end, we are a huge digital factory, right, that's processing data all day long. And that has a number of advisory and sales teams around that product, so to speak. And so if you think about this like that, ultimately, the level of disruption and opportunity in terms of the cost base efficiency, client satisfaction is going to be massive, right? And this is how we think about it.

And when you say massive, have you tried to quantify it, the SocGen AI, helping you quantify?

Today, there's no -- today, there's -- it's too early, frankly, right? Take the number one, obviously, and you guys know that. The number one most advanced opportunity is today in coding and development, right, IT development. So normally and which we've done, right, we deployed the AI platforms to our entire development staff. You can expect easily cost efficiencies, 20% plus. I'm saying easily, right? I mean, push to the boundaries. And if you look through to improvements that are going to happen in the tools themselves. And recently, there was new releases of the coding platforms that brought yet another wave of massive improvements, you could go much higher.

But then, remember also that there is a level of as always, right, of consumption of resources, computing and all kinds of other resources that are needed for AI to work, right? So I mean, 5 years from now in this space on balance, right, between the reduction in workforce that is going to be in clearly in 10%, 20% increments at least, but against the cost of operating it. I mean, it's going to be lower for sure and better quality, which is two great news.

But is this going to be minus 80%? Frankly, I don't think so.

And if I stay on this topic, and I think about how AI impact the businesses that you lend to the corporate. How do you assess that business? Because the market has been testing, especially in the software space, but also beyond software, quite a significant challenge for some business models.

I mean, so this is bread and butter work for us, obviously. So we have included specific angles to analyze this, mostly two concepts. One is what we call substitution risk. I mean, it's our own concept, but we'd simply try to monitor how a particular business can simply disappear or have some of its features, some of its products, services disappear simply because the ultimate client can do it himself or herself with some new AI tools.

And the other concept is what's the downside risk to the revenues because of the commoditization that could happen, right? So we added explicitly these two angles to our analytical framework, which forever had the technology disruption risk embedded in this, right? Because some of the big problems in credit in general, right, and 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 30 years ago, was a technology breakthrough in a particular value chain was always a risk which moved you from let's say, normal deterioration or upgrade in operating performance to, well, binary outcomes, right? So it's not different from this perspective.

But then what we also have explicitly is an assessment of a company's ability to adapt. And I think this is extremely important, right? And in my humble view, in some of the headline sentiment trading about this topic like a month ago, I think, again, in my humble view, we were losing sight a little bit of the adaptation capability.

And if you have an analogy with what happened 25 years ago with Internet and let's say the digitalization of a whole swath of the economy, well, I mean, yes, you had huge new players and some of them are very well-known magnificent companies today that emerged and became huge in the marketplace.

Well, a lot of the incumbents also adapted well and just eventually reinforce their leadership. And so I think this is what's going to happen, right? I'm not sure that all of the legacy companies across all the sectors are going to be disrupted. I think some of them will be. But if they are able to adapt, they also have the means to invest today, and they are going to be the winners in the future. So the combination of the risk but adaptation capabilities is how we look at the world today.

Thank you. And I want to open it up to the audience in one moment, but I'll just ask one more. Connected again to the AI topic, but this time on private credit. So the market is worried about private credit, BDCs in particular. And I noticed in Q4 that within F&A, you said, "Oh, we grow fund financing." So, how do you think about this business? What risks do you see? Or how perhaps you think you're senior enough that you don't see many risks? I would love your thoughts on private credit.

So first, a few, again, like cornerstone comments. It's in our business in terms of risk management, the topic of concentration risk is key. I already talked about this earlier. It obviously applies very much to this business.

So the first answer is fund financing, which, by the way, is not only private credit when I refer to this in our company, it's not only private credit, some other collateral as well. But it's roughly, it's a portion of our business with financial sponsors and our entire business with financial sponsors across all the asset classes, all the types of business, et cetera, in terms of risk is roughly EUR 20 billion, including securitization, right? And so that's the first point.

And private credit is only a portion of that, a significant portion of that. But in the spirit of what I said about concentration, it's fairly balanced, right? So that's one.

Second rule, you engage in businesses you know well. So we've been doing fund financing for 25, 30 years, right? And we've been doing private credit for 25, 30 years. So my first comment about what I -- my perception of the market is, is, there was a lot of latecomers to the party. And when you're a latecomer to a party that you don't understand well or you don't have a lot of expertise in, you are going to run into trouble, right? So that's my current view of what's going on.

Going back to the features of the business, then what you want to do is to work with prime clients, right? Same thing. You want to engage in your businesses. And it's the same when you engage in, say, or in gas industry or tech industry overall or health care industry, whatever you want to work with the clients that are strong in their market, right? So it's another feature of our business.

And this is also one of the reasons why, for instance, in the none of the instances that were in the press in the last few months. We had nothing to do with any of the topics that were in the press recently.

More specifically on the structures you referred to this. Again, concentration risk. When you look through to the collateral in our business there, we're talking about several thousands of names, right? And this is another feature. You need to have diversification on a look-through basis at the collateral level, not only at the client level, but at the collateral level. I mean, it's an essential feature of this business, because this is what makes it resilient through the cycle.

There will be cycles, right? There will be cycles in the essence of a bank's job, right, is to go through all kinds of credit cycles because we go through all kinds of macroeconomic cycles, but that diversification is absolutely key.

And then, yes, the structure itself, this collateral for us is consistent the way we finance this with an investment-grade rating for almost the entire exposure we have to the sector. And so, when you combine all the features that I just referred to, today, we obviously monitor the markets like any other, and it's a market which has some signs of overheating for sure, and some signs of turning sentiment. But from an underlying perspective, we feel our portfolio is very strong.

Thank you. I'll pause here for a moment. I want to see if the room has questions. If not, I can happily continue. Okay? It's the first fireside chat, so let's -- I leave the room to warm up. And I'll then ask you about French retail.

So if you think about 2026 and I think about the step-up in profitability, a good chunk comes from French retail, in particular, BoursoBank. So, and I know you mentioned it already earlier, EUR 300 million coming from BoursoBank. But how should we think about the delta year-on-year. And yes, if you have any comments on French Retail even more in general?

So the delta year-on-year, you should think about this as, I mean, a little less than EUR 400 million, because we clearly said that for the last 2.5 years, BoursoBank was actually profitable and able to deliver both that positive contribution, albeit small, while growing at a very high pace, plus 1.8 million, 1.9 million clients last year with that positive bottom line. But clearly, the vast majority it will come in 2026 in terms of the improvement from wherever they were to EUR 400 million of additional NBI. And it is going to be driven by two main factors in 2026, which are important actually long term, which is one, acquisition costs. Clearly, the acquisition costs in 2026 are going to be substantially trimmed down.

And two, remember, though, as it is a very high-growth business, you have a phenomenon which is significant, especially at the size that BoursoBank is right now, which is the maturing of the historical vintages, right? Because obviously, when you acquire a client, the level of AUA, so both deposits, but also the savings that are basically in the life insurance wrapper in France grow.

And so you start from, say, we have some rules, right? Just not to be completely stupid with the acquisition cost. So you do have to deposit some money if you want to get your little acquisition fee, so to speak. But it's small, right? It's a few hundred euros and the average AUA today is EUR 9,000. So you understand and say 60% of that on average are deposits, right? And so the maturity...

9,000 per customer?

Yes. And so this phenomenon of maturing of the vintages is obviously helping the top line as well. This allows to have some form of a balance, right? And this is going forward, also what we will be seeking, which is the combination of three statements, if I may say so.

One, it is a growth asset. Right? And at EUR 10 million, say, we're at EUR 8.8 billion at the end of last year, but at EUR 10 million roughly clients in France, this is -- we're not done growing. Right? It would be a mistake strategically to, let's say, stop aggressive growth at EUR 10 million. This thing needs to have by some date. I can't tell you when, but it has to be more in the 20 million or 25 million clients range to be for us to fully take advantage of a remarkable opportunity that this thing is.

Now from the size of where we are right now, this growth needs to be more contributive to the profitability of the bank. And so it's going to be a balance between the growth statement they made, but the optimization of the acquisition costs, that's the second statement.

And third, the increased cross-selling and the increased value per client within the portfolio that we have. And this will deliver both growth, but with a certain minimum rate of return in terms of ROTE, that would be contributive to the group.

Yes, we published a note on Friday actually mapping the whole French Retail banks and BoursoBank featured as having grown significantly in terms of primary relationships also since '22. But having some room to go more on cross-selling. So that's definitely the opportunity.

Absolutely. And remember, right, we monitor cannibalization, obviously, very carefully. And it's been consistently around our level of market share. So every 1 million clients we acquire in the market, 100,000 comes from us, 900,000 come from our competition. We like that.

Great. I'll move on to GBIS now. We understand, so we had some market guidance from some of your peers, especially Americans. We understand the year has started well. But, in fact, the guidance for SocGen is more conservative on the base case having revenues down. So why would that be the case? Why shouldn't we just look at peers and extrapolate something similar for SocGen? That's on global markets. And then I have another question on F&A, but maybe we'll start there.

It's the idea that, well, first of all, you always need to keep in mind the fact that from a business mix, both geographies and products, we are slightly different from the average market. The quick one is much smaller prime brokerage, smaller cash equity even if we made good progress by acquiring Bernstein. And then in terms of the FIC side, fixed income side, much more geared towards rates and frankly, euro rates than the other components, even if we do most of the sub-asset classes.

And in terms of geography, obviously, more focused on Europe, even if we have a very sound and growing business in America, it's obviously not the majority of our business.

When you take this, in many instances, this is going to have us outperform typically '22, '23, '24, part of '24, it's going to have us slightly underperformed last year, right, because of the FIC and euro rates, in particular, being less of a contributor and so on and so forth. So that's one.

Second thing, as I said very clearly, in terms of strategic intent, we are focused on profitability and stability more than on growth. And this is not just an empty statement, it actually shows in the figures, right? If you look at the last 5 years, this statement I made in 2021 when I took over CIB, which was stability and an ability to capture part of the growth opportunities that we see in the market. That's exactly what we're doing, and it obviously translates into a number of decisions, right, both from a commercial standpoint in terms of capital allocation, in terms of risk management and so on and so forth.

And the idea that we can run a very stable business around, say, these [indiscernible] so currently, the guidance is above the top of the range at 5.7%. The idea that we can run this business in a very controlled way around that mark 5.7%, 5.5%, 6% last year, more or less with a 20% ROE and the right level of diversification and our clients happy. I mean, it's something which we want to do this way, right? And so you always have some of everything I just said, infusing, if you will, the way we extract the value that's available in any market.

Right.

Hope that's clear. If you have follow-ups, I can.

Well, some more guidance in the quarter will be welcome. But I know SocGen normally doesn't give it. So okay, F&A. F&A was very strong in Q4, and I think you have quite a differentiated business model there. So can you talk us through what is differentiated for SocGen and what is the outlook for this business? Because this is where, I guess, there is quite a bit of growth for you to capture.

So what's differentiating. I think -- and you know because you know as well that it's not recent, right? I mean, I remember when I did the Investor Day for CIB in '21, I think I came out with the guidance. I was already a little conservative on the edges of, I think, 3% or 4% CAGR. And I think for the first 18 months, whatever we printed in the teens, right, in terms of growth.

And if you look at the track record in terms of risk management, it's very strong. So what's differentiating really is that most of these franchises, a little bit like the fund financing are decades old. Right? So what we do there are businesses where we've been around for clients, usually, right, for the ones who are privately owned, we work for the grandfather or the father, right, or the person running it today, right, so to speak, it's just an image right.

But we've been around for a very long time, meaning we have access to a very granular, wide set of opportunities with hundreds of clients all over the world, right? And this makes it, I was going to say easy, nothing is easy in our business, right? But it makes it easier, let's say, that probably is one of the differentiating factor to capture growth of -- in terms of high quality, in terms of risk and in terms of pricing, wherever it is, so to speak, right?

So this ability to be present in these situations all over the world for the most part is what drives this ability to grow sustainably while managing risks in a very good way. And these businesses are what are supporting clients in infrastructure, very broadly understood, right? So not only transport infrastructure, but all of the energy infrastructures obviously, all of the infrastructure is linked to renewables and all these investments all over the world and real estate, some leveraged finance, but very contained in size, and we're talking about EUR 5 billion, EUR 6 billion of exposure there and so on and so forth, right? And so the granularity of this business, and it's very, very long experience and long relationships that we have is what I think helps us perform there.

I think at some point, you made a comment that the demand for this business was so high that you were actually turning down some opportunities. Is that still the case? Is that the momentum, the need for investment is still there and you still keep looking on?

It's so strong. I mean, so going back to Iran, I mean, typically, if there is a more significant macro and long-lasting macro impact, it's going to weigh a little bit on this. But to your point, the need for some of these investments is so fundamental, right? It's so structural, but it's also protecting us from the space.

Especially in Europe, I would add.

Especially in Europe, of course. And yes, maybe one last comment. We have increased our focus in the last 2 years -- 2, 3 years on the OTD piece of this distribution. And so we increased growth origination, which obviously translates mechanically into an ability to do even more when the opportunity is there.

Clear. I'll try one last time to see if there are -- there is one, yes, questions. And if you raise your hand, I don't think they see you. Thank you.

Ann from [indiscernible] Going back to private credit and the collateral you mentioned, have you started to revalue part of the collateral? What kind of LTVs would you apply? And do you see any risk of a material repricing of some assets with what's going on with the BDCs, for example?

And second question, it's on ratings. So you mentioned it's IG rating. But is that your own rating or external ratings? Because as well in the industry, you have late comers and you can question the methodology even of the old agencies like Moody's when you have the BDCs being rated BBB-, although you have different risk profile, you can question as well whether -- so could we feel like a rating cliff and some implication as well?

So starting with the rating, it's -- no, it's internal rating, right? I mean it's about ROA, again, back to my comment about us doing this for a few decades. So that's one thing.

In terms of the valuation of the collateral, we don't see at this point. And again, going back to diversification, we also pay attention to sector diversification, right? So there's a very wide diversification from this perspective.

And today, the level of repricing of that collateral is non-significant, right? So the impact we see on this portfolio is not significant, right? And the problem credits across thousands of names is marginal, marginal, right? So I think this is what's the most important, right?

In the end, -- in the end, for the most part in the last, say, decade, right, this thing really took off. I mean, again, it's not a new business. It existed 20 years ago, right? But it took off in the last decade. For the most part, it was also consistent, especially in the U.S. with banks and mostly local ones, right, retrenching somewhat from lending structurally in the post-crisis moment and also seeing the opportunity from a capital management perspective, I guess, right, of this way of doing business.

And -- but it was somewhat normal credit, right? So I mean, because there's this whole hype today about private credit. What I mean in the end, historically, in the last 10 years, this was normal credit granting done by people who are doing a good job, right? So as the market was overheating, let's say, in the last couple of years, you had late comers who started to do things that were less sensible. Let's put it this way. And to some extent, the market reacts reasonably quickly to these excesses and is, I think, sorting it out.

Now from the BDC question perspective that you just had, I mean, in the end, could some rating action have an impact -- further impact on sentiment and maybe on clients on their clients' behavior, I mean, certainly, right? But again, that should not affect the -- in itself, the quality of the credit of the collateral, right? So again, there is going to be, let's say, a process of cleaning up the market, right? That's for sure. But today, I don't see -- I don't see this being a systemic problem in any way, shape or form.

Great. Slawomir, I want to close, like we started. The polling question said, CMD most important thing. You're not going to tell us the new ROTE target, but at least what axis or what themes should we expect?

I mean, I almost already said it, but I'll give it a different maybe spin is, when we started this journey, this particular journey, because the journey started 160 years ago, but this one, CMD in 2023, the diagnosis was that we needed to strengthen the foundations of the firm first, right, before going further in terms of growth or in terms of expansion or for that matter in terms of distribution.

I remember some people were waiting for some big distribution announcement in 2023. I mean, how absurd would that have been if we went out with some distribution targets off a low capital base. Anyway, you understand my point.

So now that we have this foundations capital, but also a better cost base, right, not perfect, but a better cost base. We can grow more meaningfully and in a controlled way, right? Of course, in terms of risk management, this is a feature of what we're doing, but also in terms of cost, basically, we're better at spending now that we've made significant efforts in terms of efficiency. So the future is increasing operating leverage by being very focused on costs because we have room to do better and while taking advantage of a better cost base and a strong capital base to grow.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Soci�t� G�n�rale conference call. Gentlemen, please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. I'm very proud to report strong performance numbers for 2025. As a result, we are upgrading our 2026 target for profitability and confirming all other CMD targets as well. 2025 was a defining year. We set new records for revenues with EUR 27.3 billion and for group net income, which reached the EUR 6 billion mark. The successful transformation sets the stage for us to sustain long-term profitable growth. Significant improvement in our financial results in 2025 cuts across all metrics, outperforming the targets we upgraded in Q2 '25. Our revenues were up by almost 7%, excluding asset disposals. That's more than double our target of more than 3%.

Even more remarkable is that all our businesses contributed to the strong performance. As you know, our commitment to reduce our cost base, both structurally and significantly is absolute. The proof point here is the 2% decrease in costs, excluding asset disposal over the past year. That's that 2% is far better than what we targeted, which was a decrease of at least 1% and it translates into a cost-to-income ratio of 63.6% in 2025, an improvement of more than 5 percentage points over the last year.

Keep in mind, this is also better than the 2025 target we set of a cost-to-income below 65%.

Cost of risk is within our guidance at 26 basis points, reflecting the strength of our asset quality and our capacity to effectively manage risks across the cycle. All of this has significantly boosted our profitability with a ROTE reaching 10.2% for the year and 9.6%, excluding capital gains on disposals. This is above our 2025 target of around 9%. These earnings allowed us to further strengthen our capital by 20 basis points. CET1 ratio now stands at 13.5% after Basel IV regulatory impact and after the extraordinary distribution of EUR 2 billion through 2 additional share buybacks.

As a result, the Board has decided to propose a total ordinary distribution of EUR 2.7 billion, up 54% compared to 2024, including a dividend per share of EUR 1.61 and a share buyback of EUR 1.462 billion. Let me put all this into perspective. These results underscore the priorities we established 2.5 years ago and have consistently executed on ever since.

Our first decisive step to significantly strengthen the bank's capital. ensuring us both ample capital buffers as well as means to support our growth. Today, with a CET1 ratio of 13.5%, the group is fully dedicated to fostering a sustainable long-term growth and consistently creating value for shareholders.

Our second strategic priority to enhance efficiency. The decrease in our cost-to-income ratio of more than 10 percentage points versus 2023 is a significant accomplishment. We still have a lot more work to do, and we will do everything to make sure this positive trend continues. Third, to significantly improve profitability. In 2025, we achieved exactly that.

Our ROTE is now more than 4 percentage points higher compared to the 2018, 2022 average. results, sustainable value creation is now a reality with a total shareholder return of 237% over the past 3 years. As I mentioned a moment ago, all our businesses contributed to the strong performance.

First, French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance recorded strong revenue growth of 4.2% versus 2024, restated for asset disposals and the impact of short-term hedges. It was driven by a pickup in the net interest income and also by a record high assets under management, both in life insurance and private banking activities, where Bank gained 1.9 million new clients, and that brings its total close to 9 million.

It is leading the market as a fully fledged bank with average client maintains a balance of around EUR 9,000 in assets under administration, remained profitable for a third year in a row, proving the strength and sustainability of its business model. BIS had a record year in terms of revenues, delivering another excellent performance with a high RONE of 16.7% under Basel IV.

The result of our strategy, Global Markets continue to deliver current and predictable revenues reaching in 2025, a 16-year high and with a high RONE above 20%. FMA increased substantially its origination volumes at a high marginal rate of return, thanks to increased capital velocity. Business also benefits from strong positioning on key sectors like energy and infrastructure.

Within International Retail, KB and BRD consistently demonstrated solid commercial performance with the successful optimization and continued digitalization of their respective distribution networks. And last, our teams at Ayven have done an outstanding job managing all the challenges that come with a complex integration. That integration is progressing as planned, and our decision to focus on profitability and risk management has resulted in a steady margin improvement throughout the year, but also allowed Ayven to maintain a sound position while reaching its 2025 financial targets. In light of this performance, the total distribution for 2025 will amount to EUR 4.679 billion, a growth of 169% versus last year.

On ordinary distribution for 2025, we are proposing a dividend per share of EUR 1.61, of which EUR 0.61 were already paid in October 2025 through the introduction of our first interim dividend. As a result, the final dividend of EUR 1 per share will be paid in June 2026, subject to the AGM approval.

All in all, the total dividend per share represents an increase of 48% versus last year. Our ordinary distribution also includes a share buyback of EUR 1.462 billion, up 68% versus last year. We have already obtained the ECB approval for this program. There's no change in our ordinary distribution policy with a 50% payout ratio, an interim dividend and a balanced mix between cash dividends and share buybacks.

In terms of extraordinary distribution, as you know, in 2025, the group launched 2 extraordinary share buybacks for a total amount of EUR 2 billion. Please note here that in the resolutions, authorizing share buybacks is mandatory to include a maximum purchase price.

The resolution voted during the last AGM when the share was around EUR 40, maximum purchase price authorized was EUR 75. Therefore, as the share price reached the maximum purchase price authorized by shareholders, we had to pause the buyback launched in November 2025 to remain compliant. This does not change our capital return strategy. And obviously, we will submit a new resolution to the next AGM to increase this limit substantially.

Going forward, distribution of excess capital will continue to depend on our capital allocation decisions. And as stated last year, in the best interest of shareholders, we are proactively managing our capital above 13% CET1 ratio. This may include both extraordinary distributions and disciplined profitable growth. We will address potential extraordinary distribution once a year during the release of the Q2 results.

At the same time, we will continue to apply strict capital allocation criteria towards the most profitable businesses. Given our current capital position, we are increasing our RWA growth target for the businesses. And in 2026, we expect an organic RWA growth of around 2%. Now our 2026 targets reflect our continued focus on value creation through growth, operating leverage and sound risk management.

Execution of our road map to date leads us to upgrade our ROTE target versus the one set at the CMD in 2023. So for 2026, we expect an NBI growth above 2% versus 2025 on a reported basis, a net cost decrease of around 3% versus 2025 on a reported basis, cost-to-income ratio below 60%, cost of risk within the 25, 30 basis points range.

And finally, a ROTE above 10%. In 2026, we will continue to deliver solid revenue growth plus strict cost discipline. We expect revenues to grow by more than 2%, driven by strong commercial momentum across all businesses. We'll support that growth by allocating higher levels of capital to the most profitable businesses. Revenue growth will also benefit from a strong decrease in BoursoBank's planned acquisition costs as we target a net profit above EUR 300 million in 2026 at BoursoBank.

Global Markets revenues are expected to be above the top end of the guidance range between EUR 5.1 billion and EUR 5.7 billion. This new range is in line with our former guidance actually as we fully consolidate Bernstein U.S. starting January 1. And of course, cost control remains a top priority for the group. We're confident in our ability to further reduce operating expenses by around 3% in 2026. What makes this possible is our ongoing group-wide transformation process.

Now at the business level, all of our 2026 financial targets are confirmed. As mentioned before, the Global Markets target is adjusted for the consolidation of Bernstein U.S. and is now between EUR 5.1 billion and EUR 5.7 billion. It's also consistent is our resolve to pursue these goals with precision, determination and a strong sense of discipline.

I will now turn things over to Leo, who will review our Q4 performance.

Thank you, Slawomir, and good morning, everyone. Let's now deeper dive deeper into the details of Q4 '25 performance. The group's net income stands at EUR 1.4 billion, up 36% versus Q4 '24, resulting in a ROTE of 9.5% versus 6.6% in the same period the previous year. These solid results are supported by the continuation of the strong commercial momentum in all businesses as well as by a tight discipline over costs.

Looking more closely, revenues are up 6.8% versus Q4 '24, excluding disposals, well above our natural target of above 3%. Meanwhile, costs fall further in absolute terms, down by minus 1.4%, excluding asset disposals and confirming, therefore, our constant cost control.

As a result, our operational leverage improves further, the cost to income of 64.6% in Q4 '25, down from 69.4% in Q4 '24. Asset quality-wise, the cost of risk remains contained at 29 basis points within our annual guidance of 25 to 30 basis points. Let's move now to Slide 12 to further explain the main revenue and cost drivers in Q4. Group revenues increased by 6.8% in Q4 compared with the previous year when removing for comparison purposes, around EUR 325 million of revenues related to completed disposals.

In French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance, revenues grew by 7.9% in Q4, excluding disposals. The increase is mainly driven by NII, which is up by 8.5%, excluding asset disposals. In Global Banking and Investor Solutions, revenues eased by 2.3% compared to a very strong Q4 '24, which was the best quarter ever in Global Markets. Revenues in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services were up by 8.6% versus Q4 '24, excluding disposals.

Finally, revenues at the Corporate Center grew by EUR 157 million, supported by efficient management of our liquidity position. Regarding costs, operating expenses, excluding disposals, declined further by 1.4% this quarter. Group reports a structural cost reduction of EUR 89 million, which more than offsets the EUR 26 million of higher CTA.

Moving on to cost of risk on Slide 13. Cost of risk stands at 29 basis points in Q4 '25 and 26 basis points for the whole year '25. This is in the lower range of our through-the-cycle guidance. Cost of risk this quarter mainly comprises Stage 3 provisions, which accounts for EUR 435 million and remained broadly stable versus Q3 '25. In Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions, we had a limited net reversal of EUR 26 million, which conceals our prudent approach.

As a result, total outstanding Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remained high at EUR 2.9 billion and stable from last quarter. Asset quality remains solid, as illustrated by the NPL at 2.8% in Q4, broadly stable when compared with last year and last quarter. And finally, the net coverage ratio remained high at 82% in Q4 '25 and stable versus Q3 '25. Let's now turn to Slide 14, where we can see the evolution of our strong capital position.

The CET1 ratio closed at Q4 at 13.5%, which is 320 basis points above NPA. The ratio also reflects the minus 27 basis point impact from new additional share buyback of EUR 1 billion, which we announced and started executing in November. Before adjusting the additional buyback, the CET1 ratio increased by 9 basis points from Q3 '25, reflecting the following impacts shown from left to right in this slide. Retained earnings contributed with 16 basis points after accruing a 50% payout.

RWA valuation represents an impact of minus 1 basis point. We had minor regulatory adjustment that had an impact of 5 basis points. And finally, other impacts account for 1 basis point. In addition, as you can see on the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all other capital ratios are comfortably above the regulatory requirements. On Slide 15, liquidity reserves remained high at EUR 318 billion in Q4 '25 with a relatively balanced mix between cash and securities. The liquidity profile of the group remains strong with strong sound liquidity ratios.

The LCR ratio was 144% this quarter, and the NSFR ratio was 116%, both well ahead of regulatory requirements and in line with our steering targets. 45% of the 2026 long-term funding program has already been completed. We maintain good access to liquidity in all currencies on the back of strong long-term ratings from all agencies. The deposit base remains strong, granular and highly diversified. Overall, the loan-to-deposit ratio remains at 77% at group level.

On Slide 16, we show a summary of the P&L for the group for Q4 '25, which we will cover in more detail in the following slides. Let's move now to the individual businesses on Slide 18, starting with subject network, private banking and insurance. In Q4 '25, loans outstanding increased by 1% compared to last year or by 2% if we exclude state-guaranteed loans, this is PGEs.

Corporate loans production was sound and increased 19% versus Q3 '25. Outstanding deposits fell 3% versus Q4 '24 but increased 2% versus Q3 '25 in the context of continued strong growth of retail savings and investment products. These off-balance sheet products contribute to the continued strong momentum in overall asset gathering.

On one side, AUM in private banking increased by 9% versus Q4 '24, we adjust for disposals and reached EUR 137 billion at the end of December '25. This is EUR 2 billion higher than at the end of September '25. On the other side, life insurance outstanding reached EUR 158 billion, increasing by 8% versus Q4 '24 or by EUR 5 billion versus Q3 '25, thanks to continued strong net inflows. Moving now to BoursoBank. In Q4, BoursoBank acquired a record number of 575,000 new clients. Since Q4 '24, it represents an increase of 1.9 million new clients or 22% with a consistently low churn rate, which remains below 4%. Assets under administration continued to grow steadily, reaching EUR 78 billion at the end of December or around EUR 9,000 per client. This represents an 18% increase versus Q4 '24, thanks in particular to the continued strong increase in deposits of 15% versus Q4 '24.

Similarly, life insurance outstandings increased by 13% versus Q4 '24. Bank also saw record high openings of brokerage accounts, which grew by 25% compared to the previous year. On the lending side, total loans outstanding are up 9% versus Q4 '24.

Looking now at the whole pillar on Slide 20. Retail Banking, Private Banking and insurance posted a solid increase in revenues of 4.2% versus 2024 when we exclude disposals and the impact of short-term hedges. And this included a sound 3.1% growth in NII. At the same time, operating expenses fell by 3.9% from '24, excluding disposals.

As a result of both, the jaws widened significantly. And therefore, the cost-to-income ratio, it stood at 61.1% in 2025, represents a substantial improvement of 10 percentage points from 76.4% in 2024. All in all, net income lands at EUR 1,815 million for the year or up 80% versus 2024 with a ROE above 10% under Basel IV versus 6% last year under the previous Basel III standards.

Let's move now to Global Markets and Investor Services on Slide 21. Global Markets consolidated a fairly strong year in 2025 with revenues reaching a record since 2009 of EUR 5.98 billion, while growing 2.7% versus 2024 in constant currency. In Q4 '25, revenues eased by 8% versus Q4 '24. Equities posted 5% lower revenues, affected by a high base in Q4 '24 and currency headwinds.

Performance also reflected the lower commercial activity in Europe and Asia as well as our geographic mix, where Europe and Asia represent around 3/4 of 2025's total revenues. However, if we focus on the Americas, where market conditions were more conducive, we posted a very strong performance with revenues up by 24% versus Q4 '24. In fixed income and currencies, revenues fell by 13% from an also very strong Q4 '24 and affected by negative currency impact.

Performance reflects as well the more challenging commercial dynamics in rates products, notably in Europe. Lastly, Securities Services revenues grew by 3% versus Q4 '24 on the back of sound activity levels and the continuation of a strong commercial momentum in all the main markets. Let's turn to Slide 22 on the evolution of Financing and Advisory.

Again, it maintained a very strong performance with revenues growing by 5.1% versus Q4 '24. This strong momentum is even more visible when focusing on Global Banking and Advisory, where revenues grew by 8.6% versus Q4 '24, accelerating from last quarter. It represents our best quarter ever, driven by the solid performance in financing activities, combined with the continuation of good momentum in both originated and distributed volumes. In addition, our DCM and ECM franchise delivered one more quarter of sound revenue growth.

Lastly, in Transaction Banking and Payment Services, revenues declined by 5% versus Q4 '24 due to negative interest rates and currency impacts. That, however, shadows the good underlying commercial momentum and the continued growth in deposits. For the whole of 2025, GTPS total revenues eased marginally by 1.2% versus 2024. Moving now to Slide 23 for the overall view of GBIS pillar. You can see that GBIS recorded record revenues this year at EUR 10.4 billion, growing by 2.6% versus 2024. That combined the 1% growth in Global Markets and Investor Services with a 5% growth in Financing & Advisory.

Moreover, we managed to grow our revenue base while maintaining our strict cost discipline showed by reduction in operating expenses by minus 1% versus 2024. The results just widened and the cost of -- cost-to-income ratio improved 2.3 percentage points from 64.4% in '24 to 62.1% in '25. At the same time, cost of risk remained moderate at 18 basis points in '25.

So all in all, GBIS posted a net income of EUR 2.9 billion in '25, up by 3.7% versus '24, which translates into a high ROE of 16.7% under Basel IV. Let's now focus on International Retail Banking in Slide 24. Overall, revenues improved by 2.7% versus Q4 '24 at constant perimeter and exchange rates. Europe posted a solid commercial momentum in both countries with an 8% increase in loans outstanding and 7% in deposits versus Q4 '24 at constant perimeter and exchange rates.

The revenues were slightly down 1% at constant perimeter and exchange rates with lower fees in the Czech Republic compared to an exceptionally high Q4 '24 level. Situation is different in Africa. Outstanding loans and deposits were broadly stable versus Q4 '24 at constant perimeter and exchange rates, while revenues increased strongly by 9% in the same period, driven by strong fee income growth.

On Mobility and Financial Services in Slide 25, the revenues increased by 11.7% in Q4. At constant perimeter, this is excluding staff. Ayvens revenues grew by 15% versus Q4 '24 on a reported basis, while when adjusted for depreciation and nonrecurring items, they fall by 8% -- this evolution reflects the continued normalization of used car sales results as anticipated. In Q4 '25, the results per unit sold was EUR 702 compared to EUR 1,267 in Q4 '24.

On the other hand, the margin increases to 567 basis points in Q4 '25 or 26 basis points higher than in Q4 '24. This highlights the continued ramp-up in synergies and the strategic focus on profitability and asset risk. In 2025, Ayvens successfully reached all its financial targets, delivering total synergies by EUR 360 million, while the average UCS results for the full year '25 stand at EUR 1,075 per unit.

This is at the high end of the EUR 700 to EUR 1,100 guidance. And the cost-to-income ratio was finally 56.1%, better than the guidance range of 57% to 59%. Regarding Consumer Finance, the business delivered a solid revenue growth of 5.9%, thanks to better margins. In Slide 26, focusing on the whole MIBS pillar, you can see that revenues increased by 6.1% in '25, excluding disposals and FX impacts, notably driven by Ayvens.

Costs in '25 fell by 3.3% versus '24, excluding also disposals and FX impacts. The strong positive jaws evolution drove a substantial improvement in the cost-to-income ratio from 59.6% in '24 to 54.2% in '25, highlighting the strict cost discipline across the pillar despite the high inflation in certain geographies and the additional banking tax in Romania.

Cost of risk improved from 42 basis points in '24 to 33 basis points in '25. And all this led to a net income of EUR 1.5 billion in '25, increasing by 28% after disposals and FX adjustments. This translates into a robust ROE of 13.9% in '25, up versus an 11% in 2024.

To conclude with the quarterly results, let's move on to Slide 27 with the Corporate Center. In 2025, revenues increased by more than EUR 160 million, thanks to continued efficient liquidity management and improving funding conditions. Operating expenses in '25 include EUR 100 million related to the global employee share ownership program recorded in Q2 this year, which compared to only EUR 3 million in '24.

In addition, the accounting impact for the various asset disposals closed this year, mostly SG Equipment Finance, Private Banking in Switzerland and the U.K. generated a positive impact accounted in net profits or losses from other assets of around EUR 300 million. On a quarterly basis, revenues increased by more than EUR 150 million for the same reasons I just mentioned for the full year, while costs are up by around EUR 50 million compared to a very low base in Q4 '24 and more in line with the quarterly historical average.

I now give back the floor to Slawomir.

Thank you, Leo. 2025 has been a year of accomplishments for the group in ESG as well. We are maintaining our pace and continuing to deliver on the commitments that we have set both in the decarbonization of portfolios and in the opportunities we see to support our clients with sustainable finance.

Emerging leaders of the energy transition see us as a partner of choice. We are now deploying the EUR 1 billion investment envelope established at the CMD to support innovation in this sector. We have joined forces with partners like the EIB or the IFC to help design the best solutions to address the challenges of the environmental transition.

Our Scientific Advisory Council helps us stay ahead in this world of rapid change. All these efforts have been recognized by external stakeholders. They have been upgraded to AAA by MSCI, making us 1 of only 2 major European banks to have received the star ESG rating. In conclusion, 2025 was a defining year for us. strong improvement in our performance, we still have a lot more work to do to realize our ambitions.

Our objectives are clear and our progress is consistent, and we remain focused on delivering on the upgraded 2026 targets, and we will give you more details on the next phase of our plan during our CMD on September 21.

Thank you very much, and let's now start the Q&A [Operator Instructions].

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Flora Bocahut of Barclays.

Yes. The first question I wanted to ask you is specifically on BoursoBank Bank because I think you said in the presentation that this is your third year in a row of being profitable, if I got it right Bourso. Could you give us a number because you give us the net profit target for next year -- I mean, this year, '26 of EUR 300 million, but so we have an idea of how big a swing this could be for the profit in French retail and at group level.

And the next question is a broader question. I don't want to preempt, obviously, the September CMD, but I can't ignore either that you're not running at 1x the tangible book and you have this ROTE that is upgraded for this year, but still at 10% plus.

So we need to start to have a better understanding on where it could go into the next 2 to 3 years. So can you maybe -- anything you can tell us there? What you think is plausible over the next 2 to 3 years? What can get you there would be helpful.

Thank you. On BoursoBank, the short answer is no. We're not providing this number, but I'm, of course, going to try and give you a little bit of color. We have said minus EUR 100 million at the CMD, minus EUR 150 million of GOI to support the growth ambition. It has actually been positive.

And -- but think about it as with 1.9 million additional new clients this year, you can see or feel that it can't be a big number because the level of our investment in client acquisition was very high, 1.9 million is, if not the best ever in terms of growth, close to it, right? So basically, it's been positive.

So huge improvement over the minus EUR 150 million GOI that was initially our thinking. But obviously, at the annual level, not something that is very significant at this point. So the EUR 300 million improvement in terms of net income is the important number here, and it's a very strong commitment that we have for 2026.

In terms of the CMD, so as mentioned in the presentation or in the past, we have basically close to double the our reported ROE, ROE performance if we compare the current performance versus the average of 2018 to 2022, for instance. So first spoiler alert, we're not going to double in the next phase of the plan. So that's one thing. But equally, you should take comfort in what we've done so far and in the way we try to speak about ourselves.

So when we say that we do firmly intend to close progressively yet decisively the gap with our most comparable peers, you should build your reasoning around that, right?

And we are committed in terms of the means to continue, and I know it's clear in the numbers to continue reducing our cost base regularly through deep transformational change in the way we operate the business in efficiency, right, in terms of sustainable cost savings because they are based on seeking out efficiency gains first that result in cost reductions, while growing and remember, growing not like in the phase we're in right now or finishing right now, meaning with a lot of fixing to do from a capital perspective, a lot of constraints, self-imposed constraints on, for instance, organic growth, right?

These things because of our capital position right now are behind us. And so we will be able in a very controlled way, very mindful of risk management strategy and commitments from this perspective, but we will have means to sustain healthy levels of organic capital allocation to the most profitable business, right?

So the combination of all this, an absolute commitment in terms of cost and efficiency with an ability to support and sustain basically higher level of profitable growth will be the main ingredients of the next plan.

The next question is from Tarik El Mejjad of Bank of America.

A couple of questions on my side. First, on the -- on costs, just taken on the previous question. I want to go all the way to the plan, which I understand that cost will be a pillar -- cornerstone of your strategy. But looking at '27, I mean, you said '26 cost will be down, but there's still some effect of 3% effect of disposals. '27 will be a cleaner year from that aspect of scope effect. Should we still expect cost to go down in '27 versus '26?

I mean you've talked in your introductory remarks about continuing trend and relentless effort to pursue that. So can you give an indication on '27? And on capital return, I mean, you took a decision to do it once a year in -- your competitor yesterday brought up FLTB as a kind of still a question mark, similar to what you've been doing last year, actually same time.

Are you also factoring in into your buffer as potentially still a possibility that it will be a headwind? If not, doing the math as usual, you will be at 13.6 7% in Q2, keeping a small buffer, there is still a EUR 2 billion headroom of buyback. I mean you've asked for EUR 1.5 billion for the full year ordinary buyback. Is EUR 2 billion not too much to ask ECB in one go? I'll leave it there.

All right. So first of all, thank you, Tarik. First of all, I have to present the cost number for '26 is a pretty clean one. because actually, it is in reported, obviously, as everything we do, right? And everything is on a reported basis. And we will not have major differences because most of the disposals were closed early last year. And so the 3% cost reduction in 2026 is actually a pretty clean number and doesn't benefit substantially from perimeter changes. So that's one.

Second, on 2027, well, let me put it this way, right? It obviously depends also on the growth and the other opportunities that we will have. But certainly, what you should take away from these conversations is that we are committed to operating leverage, right? So imagine a 2027, which is very buoyant in terms of growth. Obviously, maybe the cost base doesn't go down in absolute terms. But definitely, we are deeply committed, should we experience higher levels of growth to a significant value creation through operating leverage.

Now if everything continues as it was in the last few years, yes, further cost reductions are likely. It remains the bedrock of the improvement that we will continue to execute on in terms of transforming the group. As far as capital distribution is concerned, first, you should think about this decision, right, to discuss this at Q2 as the reflection of the fact that -- and I want to say this very clearly, this is a strategic decision for us, right?

Last year, we had to make it a couple of times because we were getting out of a phase, which was, as you know, completely different, one of saving capital, one of restricting distribution, et cetera, et cetera. And because of all the progress we had made, we were able to shift quite rapidly from one, let's say, regime to a different one. But it is always a strategic decision, like I said in the past, between organic growth, return to shareholders or inorganic growth opportunities. And so from this perspective, we believe that this, let's say, once a year communication on this topic, the idea that this is a strategic decision. It's not an accounting decision that we make during closing. Oh, we have this excess capital, let's just dispose of it immediately right now.

I think the pace for strategic decisions is the one we're setting here. So it's not about some logistics in terms of approval. At the end of the day, obviously, we have a very deep permanent dialogue with the supervisors who have insight into long-term capital projections and understand our trajectory at a very deep level. So it's not about logistics of approval. It's really about this idea that we have, and frankly, from a logistics perspective, we haven't even completely finished the share buyback from November.

We're having an ordinary one coming our way right now. The dividend payment, et cetera, the decision -- strategic decision on exceptional distribution in Q2 and so on and so forth. So that's how you should think about this.

The next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

I have 2. If I look at your target for '26, so first of all, taking a step back, you beat '25 where you had already upgraded the target. And so '26 doesn't seem particularly difficult to beat, especially on the cost side. So can you give us some color on how comfortable are you with these targets?

Any initiatives, especially on the cost side that gives us conviction that you can do minus 3% or even more? And then secondly, F&A was quite high in the quarter. And you talked about financing activities led by infrastructure, transportation and fund financing. So is there -- when we forecast looking forward, is there any seasonality we should keep in mind?

Was this an exceptional catch-up booking of some deals you had in the pipeline? Or yes, is it basically your growth strategy in this business coming through, and we should expect more of the same going forward?

Thank you. Thank you very much. Listen, on the -- whether the minus 3% target is easy or difficult, Well, I'll leave that, obviously, with everybody on the call to make their own mind, but I'm going to still share my view. I mean, we're talking about 3% absolute decrease on a reported basis, and as I said earlier, without major perimeter changes. So from where we are, I mean, it's a fairly ambitious target. Let me put it this way.

Now you do have our track record. So do we have the habit of giving you stretched targets that we're not going to meet? No, right? On the base case scenario, we do definitely intend to meet this target. If we can do better, we will. But again, right, I think it is an ambitious target from where we sit. We are doing everything we can to make sure that we will deliver on this, let's say, in normal circumstances. But on the cost side, I mean, normal circumstances are the rule.

How -- it's everything we've already been doing. But as we go, right, so be it technology, efficiency of the technology spend, be it organizational changes that allow us to operate the same process better actually in the interest of everybody, both internally and externally in the interest of clients, getting a smoother client experience, working on efficiency and deepening the work on efficiency across the entire group through new programs, new ideas, et cetera, as you may have seen in the press recently.

So it's really the continuation and the deepening of the work group-wide that we have been doing on efficiency throughout the group, right? And so this will continue to deliver not only actually in 2026, but it's going to be a process which we intend to make basically permanent to make sure that the company operates as close as possible to its highest potential in terms of efficiency, right? So that's the spirit here.

And then some technicalities, you will have lower CTA expenses because we -- for the program that we had during the CMD, we've spent most of the CTA already. So there's a marginal spend to come in 2026. So that also supports the trajectory. But fundamentally, it's all the work we're doing. And as you may have seen in the latest adjustment project of adjustment that we announced and filed with the unions in France, we are also very careful to optimize execution, right?

And for instance, this leg of our efficiency plan comes with no CTA, right? It's important to also recognize that pattern, which is -- not only are we working hard, but also trying to make sure that overall, right, overall, the expense stays under control and is optimized even in terms of the CTA itself. For the F&A question, you should think about this as -- no, there's no particular accumulation of closings or things like that. It's a genuine pretty wide momentum within this business, which, as you know, of course, has been historically a growth engine of GBIS and with a very good risk return profile.

And it will continue as such with a very controlled approach in terms of risk still. But yes, it is an investment spot, a natural and very efficient investment spot for organic RWA growth, and it yields substantial marginal rates of return.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

So my first one is on your comments around '26, the 2% increase in RWAs, which is clearly a little bit of an acceleration. It looks like, I mean, volumes are still somewhat very moderate in France and feed volumes at Ayvens also are sort of still going down. So just wondering kind of like if you could give us a bit of color where that's coming from and where do you intend to step up a little bit growth?

And my second question is on Global Markets. I was just trying to understand, if you take a step back, why compared to not just U.S. peers, but like some of the French peers, the trends have been a little bit weaker this year. Is that sort of less risk taking from your side? Or any color on how we should think about the trends going forward as well?

Thank you. So on the 2% RWA increase on an organic basis allocated to businesses. So yes, it is an acceleration. Like I said earlier, one of the means that we have now is this one to support our growth in a very reasonable way. So I agree with you. The loan growth in France, especially on the retail side, should remain positive, but not very dynamic in 2026.

In terms of the Ayvens opportunities, I would point to a slightly different statement, which is what we have done this past 2.5 years was to focus on a very significant merger, which we discussed in the past, but also on making sure that the business adjusts itself to both some rate environment and margin compression trends and working a lot on the margin on striking the right contracts on making sure that we do the right thing from this perspective, that we protect the value basically from a margin perspective, and you've seen the results of that.

And the second piece is obviously risk management in a world which in these businesses was potentially challenged by some of the shifts in residual value or in all the electric vehicles topics, right? And so we've been very conservative from this perspective, precisely to come to, let's say, the new phase, both done with the restructuring, done with the integration, which will more or less be achieved during 2026, but also at the same time, have a very healthy base to resume growth, right?

So while it shouldn't be an extremely high pace, let's say, in 2026, Ayvens is clearly well positioned today to be also an investment spot from this perspective. Now -- moving on. Clearly, International Retail has the capacity to deploy capital in a good way, in an efficient and profitable way.

And finally, GBIS, starting with F&A, financing and advisory, but also within the cash management business as well can do better and will be one of the preferred spots for investments and again, providing high marginal returns. So that's the story on the organic growth. And your second question on Global Markets. It's really -- I mean, if you take a step back, it's a mix of -- if you look at the entire year, we're talking about the very good performance, which is the best revenue generation in 16 years, one.

Two, and consolidating in 2025, which was a high point. And we're now close to EUR 6 billion, as you have seen. So that's one. Two, we've discussed this in the past. There is a perimeter, a business mix difference between us and a lot of our peers in the following way, right? One, we have exited commodities a way back and commodities were a driver of performance this quarter.

Two, fixed income in our house is weighted towards rates and towards Europe more than the other jurisdictions. Three, we have prime brokerage businesses, which are smaller or substantially smaller than some of our peers. And so whenever the market dynamic is one which is particularly favorable to this business, you will always see us basically slightly different from this perspective. We are investing there.

We are progressing, but in a very controlled way. But today, if you take a snapshot, it's a much smaller business at our shop than some of the others. And finally, our share in the business mix in terms of the U.S. business is also smaller, obviously, than our American peers, but also our competitors more actively, but also when you compare to some of our European competitors. And so when you combine all of this, you have most of the difference of Q4.

But again, within a year, which has been good. I'm not going to go through some technical aspects. There is still some of that day 1. I mean, we were actually very dynamic in producing some of the solutions that carry negative day 1 accounting as they are originated when the origination is more dynamic stronger, right?

But this is like a couple of percentage points, let's say, of difference since we're at minus 8% and the others are basically plus 5% in Europe. The rest of the gap is almost entirely explained by business and geographical mix differences. Two last comments on this topic. one, our U.S. business has grown in dollars. Remember also that we're reporting in euros, has grown 39%, which is actually well above the market average even in the U.S.

So just showing you how we operate there successfully, but it's a 20%, 25% share of our Global Markets business. So that's one. And the last comment is going to your risk consideration and capital consumption consideration. Yes, in the last 5 years, we have dramatically turned the way of doing this business.

And while reducing by a 20%, 30% our market risk RWA. We discussed that in the past, even much more so stress test consumption. We have been able to grow this business at a controlled pace with much lower capital allocation and a high ROE of 20%. I gave it all so that you have all the facts.

The next question is from Jeremy Sigee of BNP Paribas Exane.

My first question is just continuing on the Global Markets discussion, if we could. The guidance is unchanged at a level that's lower than both the 2025 run rate and the consensus. Is that just maintaining the existing target? It's conservative. It doesn't mean much you could well be better again? Or is there any kind of directional significance in that number that you're maintaining?

And then a different question on Ayvens, the UCS results are normalizing down. And both from your comments and from their comments this morning, the indication is it could continue to go lower in 2026. And I just wondered, is that taken into account in your own guidance, including the 2% revenue growth?

Thank you. So first topic on the markets, Global Markets target. So yes, I mean, we don't want to touch this at this point. So we simply adjusted for the perimeter change, if you will. And this is how we're ending up with that 5.7% top of the range. We're also saying that in our base case, we should be above the top of the range in 2026. So that's what we're saying, right?

And the indication that you should, in my view, take from these statements is that we recognize and facts support this recognition that this is a target which -- target range, which has been conservative in a world which was, again, to say the least unusual if you compare the last few years versus, let's say, the previous decade.

And so today, we think that, again, while maintaining this range, adjusting it for the perimeter change, we're also giving you the color that we believe that in a base case scenario, we should be above the top of the range in 2026. In terms of the UCS, it's exactly what you said, right? It is decreasing substantially, and we do forecast at this point that it will continue. And yes, this is taken into account in the projections, including in the growth projections and every other aggregate.

The next question comes from Chris Hallam of Goldman Sachs.

So I guess a couple of questions for me. A little bit of a follow-up on the markets. I think Slawomir great explanation as to how the footprint differs. I just wanted to take it forward a level. Do you feel any need to further address that sort of footprint imbalance versus the industry more broadly aside from what you've already done in Bernstein, i.e., you want to grow faster in the U.S., put more balance sheet to work, expand the product offering in FICC?

Or should we just sort of assume that you're comfortable with the footprint and the plans you already have in place? And the reality is some quarters that will be a bit of a headwind versus peers and other quarters, that will be a bit of a tailwind. So that's the first question.

And then second, it seems as though there is a bit of a sort of growing tech spend arms race across the industry, and you mentioned your real focus on transformational change in the way that you operate and how you become more efficient by design, I guess.

With that in mind, there were some press headlines recently suggesting you've decided to focus your in-house AI infrastructure around Copilot. So just can you help us understand what the relative financial and nonfinancial advantages are of pivoting to a completely off-the-shelf solution versus the alternatives?

So on -- the first question, on markets, I think a few -- it's a very important question. Thank you. So one, yes, unreserved, yes, we are continuing to work on the footprint. And you have some anecdotal at least, if not more, evidence of that through some of the hires we've made in fixed income, for instance, through some of the investments we're making through what I said earlier about continuing investments in the -- our prime brokerage business through also historically a real push to grow our business in the Americas and obviously, in the Americas, in particular and mostly in the U.S.

So yes, we are -- and Bernstein is the other example that you gave, of course. And so yes, we are continuing to work on all these fronts to balance the business more from a mix perspective. and in order, yes, to make it both bigger over time, but also more -- even more diversified basically. But so far, it's exactly what you described. And actually, if you look at the patterns over the last few quarters and years, it were -- these were sometimes headwinds like in Q4 2025, but sometimes significant tailwinds when we were in some of the years of more significant trends and moves on the rate markets and in particular, in Europe.

So it's exactly what you described, but we are working on making it different. Just one, for instance, example is the U.S. business is now double the size it was 10 years ago. in a very diversified, in a very sound way, which points to my last comment on the topic, right? Nothing will be done in terms of investments and execution on these investments in a hasty or oversized way. I'm explaining myself. In the past, we've tried that, right? We've tried that let's have this very big program to increase very substantially the fix size, and we're going to be competing with everybody across all the sub-asset classes, et cetera, never worked, right?

So what we're doing right now is very controlled, slow progress, both to make sure, right, that we don't destroy profitability as we invest -- that's one. But two, that the investments are successful, right? And I don't believe in big moves, except when we had the opportunity to buy Bernstein, we did it. But I don't believe in, let's say, huge accelerations, revolutionary accelerations in organic investments in the market. That's not working usually.

And when we're trying to do something right now, we're trying to make sure that this is going to work. That's for the market. In terms of the AI question and internal off the shelf, et cetera. I mean it's the idea more accurately that you need to use the best tools available at the moment in time where this whole AI opportunity and potentially threat, et cetera, is still partially unclear, right?

Today, what works is effective summary and translation of text, effective extraction of data from large pools of more or less structured data and where it really works is indeed in IT services and coding, et cetera. These are the 3 areas where this new technology is actually able to perform at scale at a high level of reliability. And I remind you that in our business, the level of expectations from supervisors on, for instance, model validation is extremely high, right?

So building on that, clearly, we prefer to use something which has a proven capacity to enhance the adoption, the understanding and the work on these topics in the somewhat still infancy stage of this technology. And from this perspective, we felt that it was much more efficient to use, again, an outside proven reliable tool at this point in time.

Now as you may know, if you're interested in topic, you may have read, we have also created a specific structure dedicated to, let's say, the research on these topics and to the selection of the biggest at-scale opportunities in terms of efficiency or cost reductions, et cetera, to make sure that all this, let's say, bottom-up interest and activity is channeled towards value creation, right? And that we have a level of control on the underlying costs that obviously this whole revolution potentially carries with itself.

So it's a combination of we have our own internal approach to look at the use cases and at the opportunities, et cetera. But yes, trying to use the best of the breed in terms of technology.

The next question is from Andrew Coombs of Citi.

If I could have a follow-up on Global Markets. You mentioned in answer to Jeremy's question that the EUR 5.1 billion to EUR 5.7 billion range is purely because you left it unchanged, but your base case is that you expect to be above that range.

With that in mind, can you just confirm the sub-65% cost/income ratio target for Global Banking and Investor Solutions, is that predicated on the EUR 5.1 billion to EUR 5.7 billion? Or is it predicated on your base case that you're going to be above that range? That's the first question. Second question, France, net interest income, another big improvement in the net interest margin Q-on-Q.

Perhaps you can just elaborate on if there was anything one-off in that NII result? And also how you expect the net interest margin to trend going forward into 2026?

So on your first question, so again, maybe a precision. The range is what it is. It's proven to be on the conservative end in the last few years, again, in markets which were in the end, particularly conducive for this business overall for the industry and for us.

So the idea that today, we're saying that we, in a base case scenario, expect to be above that range, it's a little more than just a target discussion. It's a sense of what we think will be the market conditions and our ability to navigate them in 2026. So it's an indication of where we think we will be in 2026.

Now in terms of the relationship between this target and the cost-to-income target of GBIS, it is predicated on -- in the end, to keep it simple, on our budget, right? So on what we see as being our operational target and on the basis of which we communicate the annual targets for the group. So that's the underlying process, right? And so you should take away that it's based on this range, but it's not based on the low end of that range. It's based on the budget.

And since I also gave you a sense of what the vision we have for the year, I think you have all the pieces to make your judgment. So that's that. In terms of the NII in Q4, you have a few things. There's no one-off. There's no one-off. It's the full effect of the Livret A repricing down, which happened in August. So you have that. You have a good momentum in deposit gathering and the deposits are up 1.5% versus Q3 '25 in the French retail pillar.

And you have the continued process of repricing of the back book, right? And so the combination of all these things and in a loan growth dynamic, which was fairly stable, but with a slight price effect, which was positive because you have basically commercial loans marginally down, individual loans marginally up, overall stable, but from a pricing perspective, a slight tailwind.

So you have the pieces that explain the Q4 dynamic, which is indeed positive. Going forward, what we expect is basically a continuation of moderate growth trend because now there is no more perimeter effect, right? Because in 2025, we still have a perimeter effect linked to private banking, which is within that pillar. We no longer will have that in 2026.

So you have no more hedges, of course, no more perimeter impact and something which would normally be a continuation of this trend, which is moderate tailwinds supporting moderate growth, which will also obviously depend on the macro dynamics in France, which at this point in time, we forecast to be in terms of loan growth, typically a slight increase during the year.

The next question, sir, is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

One question on the assumptions behind the greater than 10% return on tangible equity. If I look at the range that you have for markets revenues, if we assume the 10% return on tangible is the floor, does that assume, for instance, that the floor on market revenues is at the bottom end of your range? So in other words, if you were to print greater than the EUR 5.7 billion, we could assume a return on tangible above that.

So I'm just trying to calibrate the bottom end of your ROE range, which, let's say, is 10% versus the bottom end of your markets range if the 2 can be compared. So that's question number one. And then question number two, is on how you define your balanced payout between DPS and share buyback? Because if we look this year, it was 45-55 in favor of buybacks. And then I think last year it was 50-50. Could it be 40 divi and 60 buyback next year? I guess, how do we think about calibrating that going forward?

Thank you. Thank you very much. On the first question, so once again, our targets overall, the targets that we disclose here and commit to for the year are based on what we target operationally and the process that underpins this is obviously the process of budgeting. So the 10% ROTE target, above 10% ROTE target is not based on the bottom range of the market target.

It is based on the target that we have for the year, and I commented upon that earlier saying that right now, we believe that it's going to be at the slightly above top of the range. So that's how you should think about this, right? Now slightly above top of the range, it's still less than what we've done this year.

So just to make sure that this is clear, if we were to have a year better than 2025, it would support, obviously, mechanically, the performance from a group ROTE perspective. But that's how you should think about the targets are our best view of what we're going to achieve next year. So that's for the first question. And the second one, sorry, I'm blanking out.

Okay, the distribution. So 55 -- 45. So first, the balanced mix between dividend and share buybacks was -- we were clear in the past about this was always something which meant that we had a leeway between basically 40 and 60 indeed to fine-tune the decision when it is made by the Board at the end of the year. So indeed, right, balanced means it's between 60-40, 50-50 as a base case scenario, but between 60-40 both ways, if you will. This year, the calibration, I mean, was simply -- you have a few inputs into the decision.

One is the growth rate of the dividend. Two is the buyback opportunity in the context of a certain price to book. And the choice was made that with a 48% increase in dividend and the share where they traded, this seemed within the policy that I just referred to, the right choice.

The next question, sir, is from Pierre Chedeville of CIC Market Solutions.

Yes. One question regarding BoursoBank. I was wondering if you think that maybe you have to revise your future plan regarding investments and particularly marketing investment, considering the strong competition, particularly from one of your peers, which is targeting 10 million clients, I think, in 2027. And I was wondering if at the end of the day, your target of EUR 300 million in 2026 will remain at this level for the coming years because of this investment to counterattack this type of competition?

My second question regards protection and P&C revenues, which are quite stagnant this year compared to last year. While when we look at our competitors, they are rather in good shape on this area. So I was wondering why it's not so good for you? And are you trying to hide, I don't know, but something like a bad combined ratio, for instance, can you give us a few numbers regarding undiscounted combined ratio in these 2 businesses, Protection and P&C?

Thank you. So on the first question of basically the decision, the arbitration between growth and profitability. From a strategic standpoint, this is a growth asset. I was always very clear about this. This is why we took the decision at a time where we had lots of challenges, but we still took the decision in 2023 to continue investing substantial amount of money, energy and support to grow this asset.

Now the growth at BoursoBank is not only about the number of clients, right? And we've been also very consistent providing some color about the assets under administration, which have simply nothing to do with most of our peers and certainly the one that you have in mind.

And we have spend a lot of time and efforts also deepening the product offer, making sure that as a full-fledged bank, it can support customers in every single area of their banking needs and be able to do it at the highest level of client satisfaction and for the year in a row, BoursoBank remains the leading bank in France in terms of client feedback. And in terms of -- which also is reflected in a very low churn, which, again, despite the very dynamic acquisition of clients almost doubling in the last few years, you have a churn rate, which is substantially below 4%.

So the point I'm making here is what we care about is that this bank right? This full-fledged bank with a complete product offer and a very high culture in terms of client satisfaction continues to deliver the service. The number of customers is a headline number, which in the end doesn't mean anything, right? Because what you really want to do is to provide the right service and generate the long-term profitability that you can extract from that particular business. So we're focused on this.

Now is there going to be a slowdown in expenses in 2026, in particular, yes. But that doesn't mean that there's going to be a mechanical effect, one-for-one mechanical effect in terms of growth because obviously, we're not also static in the way we think about client acquisition and in the way we think about managing, let's say, this cycle of growth, which is going to continue way past 2026. I hope that gives you some color. On the protection side, there's -- let's say, I mean, in the end, you have choices to make, right? There are a lot of products in a bank that is -- that are offered to the customers.

And you're focusing on this particular one, which has been basically stable. The premium are basically stable year-on-year. But you could point to the other piece of the insurance business, which is the investment piece, life insurance, where for a second year in a row, our pace of asset gathering is twice our market share, right?

And we're leading the market from this perspective in a very substantial and meaningful way. So this is how you should look at this, right, that we make choices, including from a commercial standpoint. across all the businesses in French Retail in particular, has nothing to do with combined ratio, which is more than comfortable.

The next question is from Matthew Clark of Mediobanca.

A couple of questions, please. Firstly, on the fee revenues in the French retail banking business. I mean, I think you've just described that the acquisition cost part of that is going to be coming down next year. But if we set that aside, does the 2% organic growth that you reported this year, is that a kind of good run rate for you?

Or are there tailwinds or headwinds to that, again, if we set aside the BoursoBank acquisition cost aspect? And then other question is on the transaction banking business. in financing and advisory. Is the lower rate impact now digested there? And just your thoughts in terms of the outlook here. You had a very strong period of growth, but seems to be slipping a bit more recently.

Thank you. So on your first question, I mean, you got it right. I think the base case scenario is the stability around the numbers that you have in mind. That's the base case scenario for the fee income with a substantial -- if you dig into the details, a substantial increase, as you would imagine, in terms of the financial fees, more than compensating a slight decrease in service fees, completely aligned with what I said earlier.

And to your point, setting BoursoBank aside, the underlying trend should be this one. In terms of the transaction banking, yes, most, if not all of the effect of the rates obviously reducing and decreasing and thus impacting the NII generated in that business.

So that trend is mostly behind us for 2026. And remember, on the flip side, it's a business which we have been investing in for the last now, I would say, 8 years. And we absolutely are determined to continue to invest in this business, both commercially and in terms of the technology that is used there. But like everything else we do in a controlled way and making sure that there's both an ability to self-finance, so to speak, this growth, but also that the returns remain meaningful. But from a rate perspective, the headwind that it was in particular, in '25 is mostly behind us.

The next question is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

The first is just on the core Tier 1 ratio at year-end 2026. Can you just talk about your thinking why is now specified at above 13% versus the 13% before? And then when you come to the second quarter and assess your potential extra distribution, what factors would you take into account? And should we look at the base last year, the EUR 1 billion or EUR 2 billion as a base basically?

And then maybe just lastly, a tricky one, I guess you have the Capital Markets Day only in September, but is capital distribution another area that could be a topic?

So if I forget something, let's -- please remind me, right? So first was CET1, so the fact that we added a little sign. So don't read too much into this, right? It's just like think about above 13% as 13.00001 is above 13%, right? Just to be clear, I mean, it was just a way of confirming that we do not intend in normal circumstances as a general rule to ever go below 13%. But it doesn't -- absolutely doesn't mean that there's any kind of accumulation above 13% as a matter of strategic intent.

Second question is -- I'll take the last one first because I remember it. So would distribution and capital policy be a topic for the CMD? Yes, of course, right? There should not be a major surprises from an intent, right, from a general strategic approach, which is above 13%, we consider we have excess capital that we intend to use either in organic growth or in exceptional distribution or in inorganic growth. But of course, you will get much more color on these topics and a perspective that will cover the plan the plan -- the entire plan, right?

So I think there's going to be a lot of content. But again, with the strategic thinking framework, which will remain unchanged. In terms of the one or EUR 2 billion in Q2, basically, well, we'll discuss that in Q2, right? Let me put it this way.

But what factors will you be looking at basically as the capital ratio or...

No, the factors is always the same. Okay. Thank you. No, listen, it's always the same story, right? It's always the same answer. It's -- I want to come back to this and make sure that this part is really heard. It's a strategic decision, right? This is not some everyday housekeeping, right? I have something left on my table, so I'm going to dispose of it, right, the fastest way I can.

It's a strategic decision about the strategic resource for the company, right? And so the factors, very simple is the level of capital, the performance, the current performance and the strategic opportunities between organic growth, distribution to shareholders as an exceptional distribution or inorganic growth.

The next question is from Alberto Artoni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

I have 2, please. The first one is on the tax rate. What do you expect for the tax rate for next year, also taking into account the changes in French law? And secondly, on the cost of risk on the French retail, what is the outlook there, please?

Thank you. On the tax rate, I'll leave that with Leo. He's going to give you some color. Just one comment on the French context, which is that, as we've said in the past, because of the international nature of our business and the way it is operating mostly locally outside of France and the structure of the head office in France, et cetera, we are not experimenting a massive impact of some of the tax decisions in France.

The impacts are rather marginal. But on the details, I'll let Leo answer in the second. In terms of the NCR for the retail in France, -- what you have is something which is fairly stable, as you see in the numbers, and that has a small increase on the SME side, very consistent, very granular, nothing specific and consistent with the increase in bankruptcies that we've seen throughout the year for the SMEs, a trend which is, by the way, decelerating recently, right?

So right now, our vision for 2026 is fairly constructive. You have growth, albeit sluggish and small, but still you have growth and you have resilience in the system. So very consistent with the market trends at a granular level, nothing specific, neither from a specific fire perspective or specific sector to report at this point. Leo, on the tax rate, some more color.

Sure. So basically, in 2025, we've had a tax rate, which has been lower than the one that we had in 2024. That's basically been driven by the fact that we've had quite a few capital gains through the P&L, and those have relatively lower tax rate. So they had an impact on the mix.

Now going forward for 2026, I think we're going to have a tax rate which is going to be higher than 2024 because of the reasons mentioned. So this year, we're not going to have so many capital gains coming through the P&L, and therefore, we will not have that mix impact, if you wish. So it will be higher than 2025, most likely will be perhaps lower than the one that we had in 2024. because the mix of our revenues from outside of France are still quite high. So we don't expect any big impact coming from the tax -- the potential tax changes within France for the overall tax rate. So basically, higher than 2025, but lower than 2024.

The final question, sir, is from Sharath Kumar of Deutsche Bank.

I have 2. So I hear your -- hope I'm audible. So I hear your previous criteria for inorganic growth, but hypothetically speaking, should the relative valuation between SocGen and Ayvens shares turn more favorable for you, would you still be hesitant to buying out Ayvens minorities?

In other words, is the residual value risk considering the fast-evolving automotive market, a constraint in your thought process? That is the first one. And second is a small follow-up on the equities question. Can you provide the revenue mix between the various products, i.e., cash equities, derivatives, prime and also by geography?

All right. So thank you. On the inorganic growth question and specifically pointing to the, let's say, theoretical opportunity of buying minority stakes in Ayvens o increase our ownership there. So across any topic of using excess capital, first cornerstone statement, it has to make sense from a financial perspective, it's a decision that we will always take rationally. Is the opportunity good for the company and for the shareholders.

So if we're talking about growth, whether organic or inorganic, the question is going to also be -- always be what is the expected marginal return and what is the risk attached to this investment, be it again organic or inorganic. So in that framework, it's clear that especially as at least from a theoretical standpoint, the obvious return of SBB, hopefully, will continue to decrease.

You will have opportunities theoretically, like the one that you're referring to in Ayvens that would, in an Excel spreadsheet look potentially more and more attractive for sure. Now the second comment I've made in the past and today, I want to point you to is decisions we intend to make there need to be strategic, right? So today, the thinking is, right, we have control of this great asset, and we can continue to both improve its efficiency, improve its performance and position it for further growth without making from a strategic standpoint, any further investments, right?

So I'm not saying never because you never should say never. But today, there is no strategic intent to do this because we believe that between the 0 execution risk share buyback opportunity and organic growth that we are able to do things that are strategically more meaningful for the group and for the shareholders at a level of risk, which we believe is acceptable. So that's how we think about this. In terms of the mix, we do not disclose the overall mix, but I gave you a few ideas in terms of the geographic split, the U.S. overall.

So here, I'm not talking about the markets only, but the U.S. overall is roughly 27%, 30%, say, 25% to 30% of the overall GBIS business. In terms of the market, it's more or less the same, 25% to 30% U.S. from a geographical perspective. Then you can imagine a pretty significant weight of Europe and marginal and the marginal -- more marginal representation in Asia, but it's still meaningful, but smaller than the other 2 regions.

And in terms of the businesses, what we do disclose is that you have basically a 60-40 more or less split between equities and fixed income. And in fixed income, you need to think about the mix as versus the average market, basically less commodities because there's none. So obviously, less commodities and a credit business, which is smaller and more focused on securitization and private credit than, let's say, on traditional marketable securities credit. So that's the color on fixed income and from a geographical standpoint there, heavy weighting towards Europe and Asia versus the U.S.

In terms of the equity, you know that historically, our business has a big focus on the investment solutions, right? It remains true even if as intended and explained 5 years ago when we spoke at the Investor Day for GBIS when I took over, we did grow substantially the flow businesses, both on the equity derivatives side, as well and linear businesses as we call them and as well, notably through the acquisition of Bernstein, the cash equity piece, but we don't disclose further percentages. Thank you.

Mr. Krupa, there are no more questions registered at this time, sir.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. Thank you for joining us this morning and sharing your valuable time with us. I thank you for your questions, and I wish you a nice day, a nice weekend, and I'll talk to you during the next release for Q1. Thank you very much. Take care.

Thank you. Bye-bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

All right. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for attending this session. I'm Delphine Lee from the European Bank's team at JPMorgan. And I have the pleasure to have Leopoldo Alvear today, CFO of SocGen, with us. Thank you, Leo, for coming.

Pleasure is all mine. Thank you very much for having me over.

Great. So maybe we dive directly to capital and distribution, if you don't mind.

Okay.

So I mean, CET1 is well above your target of 13%, and you've just announced another EUR 1 billion share buyback. Now going forward, do you intend to assess the amount of buybacks only once a year with full year results? Or are you keeping a buffer as well for FRTB? And also, with a stronger organic capital generation than in the [Audio Gap] you consider structurally increasing your ordinary payout policy from 50%?

All right. Thank you. So I think we haven't changed our policy here. So we announced 3 years ago that we wanted to run the bank with 13% CET1. We've been able -- that was a target basically for 2026. By the end of 2026, we've been able to achieve the target well ahead of schedule. But we don't want to build a buffer on the buffer. In other words, the 13% already incorporates a buffer, a management buffer, which is the one that we announced back in 2023.

So we just announced the second extraordinary buyback or extraordinary distribution this Monday. We announced the first one in July. We ended the execution of that one just before the presentation of the third quarter. And we announced the second one this Monday, basically. And we aim to keep on doing the same thing going forward. In other words, every time we have excess capital, we will decide whether to invest that in organic growth, as long as we can grow the bank without changing our risk profile while generating an extra return on the one that we are making.

We can also employ that capital in inorganic acquisitions should we find anything that was appealing for our shareholders, or we will return the capital to the owners, which are the shareholders, because at the end of the day, we are only steward-shipping the capital. So depending on what's the best return, that's what we would do. And currently, share buybacks where we are trading are certainly a very good opportunity for our shareholders, especially because they entail no risk, if you wish. And again, this is always a decision that needs to be made by the Board of Directors of the bank, which is the case so far.

When we look at the distribution of capital, we like to basically separate what we have, what we call, recurrent distribution, which would be the payout that we give out every day -- every year and the excess capital distribution. Within the recurrent part, last year, we upgraded and increased our payout from the region of 40% to 50% to 50%. Why? Basically because of 2 reasons. On the one hand, we had already achieved the capital targets we were aiming to achieve. In other words, the buildup phase was already behind us. And second, we had increased our profitability. In other words, with the 50% of retained earnings, we can still cope to increase the balance sheet of the bank, which at the end of the day is what we should be aiming for. In other words, this 50% is recurrent. It's something that we can do every year despite growing our balance sheet.

Now with the remainder, what we say, it's this excess capital distribution. And what we have shared with the market, it's basically that we will do it if we have generated excess capital, which is what we're doing every quarter. Now we're generating capital around 10 basis points in average every quarter, and we will devote it to the 3 things that I mentioned, either organic, inorganic or excess distribution. So I don't think anything will change on that regard.

And on top of that, as per the recurrent policy, what we introduced also in July, was the introduction of an interim cash dividend, which has already been paid. It was announced in July, it was paid in October, and this should be going forward. In the past, as per the payout, what we have done, it's basically a 50-50% split between cash dividend and share buyback. I think as long as the cash part of the equation can grow, perhaps we could be a little bit more flexible on the 50-50 split. But again, as always, this is a Board decision. So bottom line, I don't think anything has changed. We are delivering what we promised, which is that we increased our payout ratio. We put an interim dividend on the table, and we are distributing the excess capital when we generate it.

And do you think French politics can derail your medium-term ambitions to return that capital to shareholders or...

So while there's been a lot of noise about some of the proposals that are out there within the budgeting process, at this point, I have no further visibility. So it's still under the negotiation of the different parties. We don't know when we're going to get this kind of agreement, or if there's going to be a budget. We personally believe that the chances of these extraordinary tax on buybacks are slim, but we will need to wait.

In any case, again, nothing will change from our standpoint. We will always be very disciplined as to what to do with the capital. And of course, we will always take into account what are the financials behind the potential distribution of that capital to shareholders and what makes sense from a mathematical standpoint for our shareholders. Again, my message here would be the one that I tried to deliver before. The capital is not ours, belongs to our shareholders. We will try to do what's best for them in any given circumstances.

Great. Thank you. Now moving on to profitability and costs. With expenses down minus 2% year-on-year so far this year. I mean, you've done a great job at reducing costs, but consensus is still somewhat skeptical about the target of below 60% for cost-to-income ratio in 2026. How do you intend to meet your cost-to-income target? Maybe I'll start with that.

Sure. So when we disclosed our strategic plan 2.5 years ago -- or 3 years ago, basically in September '23, we were aiming to fulfill 2 or 3 targets. So the first one, we were aiming to change the governance and the culture of the bank, and we are in the middle of doing that. We wanted to streamline the bank to basically retain what was core for the bank and dispose those activities that were not -- we didn't think were core because they were not bringing synergies, they were not in the right places, or didn't make the right profitability. We wanted to raise our capital to 13%. The fact that we did the streamlining faster and probably on the higher range of what we were expecting has brought us to the position that we have today where we're well ahead of the schedule on capital, and we have excess capital at this point. And finally, we wanted to increase the returns of the bank, and that was basically driven by the cost-to-income.

When I was looking at the bank last year before joining, my conclusion was that, of course, we're in the right banking business. So we lend and therefore, there are risks involved. When I look over the last 6 years, the cost of risk has been relatively stable if we strip out COVID in '20 and the reversal of COVID in '21. And we've been in the mid-25 -- mid-20s space on that regard. So basically, the big issue of the bank was always the cost-to-income in order to foster profitability.

Back in 2023, our cost-to-income was in the mid-70s space. And that's where we set this target, which was honestly a challenging target for us, to reach this 60% by next year. In '24, we brought down the cost-to-income below 70%. We were aiming this year to bring it down by 66%. In June, we upgraded that guidance towards below 65%, because we were doing better in both revenues and costs. Nine months of the year, we are around 64% or a little bit short or shy of 64%. So well on track to, in my opinion, deliver the target set for '25. And then we have a further step to take, which is the 60% for 2026. I mean the commitment of the management is absolute. We know that we have been able to regain some confidence from the market, and therefore, we need to deliver on all the targets that we promised. And therefore, our commitment for the 60% is absolute for next year.

How are we going to achieve it? Well, I think, obviously, it's a ratio that combines revenues and costs as asset ratio says. On the revenue side, I think we're going to keep on seeing some expansion on French retail, just like we've seen this year for the different trends that we've seen behind. We're certainly going to see an expansion in BoursoBank, because another one of the targets and guidances that we set with the market was that BoursoBank should make next year EUR 300 million of net profit. So if you gross that up by taxes, that's basically MBI, because it will be driven significantly by a reduction of the acquisition of new clients. So that's a big boost on revenues on that side. We should also probably see some expansion on financial in the part of Financial Advisory of our CIB business. So we think that revenues can grow a little bit next year. Nothing super spectacular, but the trend should continue to be positive on that regard.

And on the cost side of things, basically, what we need, we're going to see a further reduction. When we said we wanted to be in the 60% of cost-to-income, that embedded that we were going to invest EUR 1 billion in basically restructuring charges or cost to achieve, which in our case is booked in the OpEx line. So north of EUR 600 million, close to EUR 650 million of those EUR 1 billion were already invested in '24. A big chunk of the remainder will be invested in '25. That's one of the reasons cost-to-income is coming down this year, and it will go further down in '26, because we won't have those restructuring charges as part of the OpEx.

Second thing that we will see next year, it's some cost cutting still coming from the merger of our 2 brick-and-mortar retail networks, so basically Crédit du Nord and Societe Generale. We will also see, obviously, some cost cutting coming from Ayvens. So Ayvens itself launched in '23, again, a strategic plan, which lasts until next year. And they're aiming this year for a cost-to-income in the 57% space and a 52% next year. So for certain, we're going to see a reduction in costs coming from Ayvens and therefore, at a group level.

We're also putting a lot of cost discipline since this year on the FTEs. So basically, we have attrition. We have an attrition rate all over in the group and especially in France, and we are putting tight control on basically the replacement rate of that attrition. We are controlling all the cost. We have a cost control tower. And we are also having a different view on the IT expenditure. IT expenditure for bank is huge. It's a big part of the costs, and we are trying to reshuffle the IT investment towards a more productive one. We already saw last year that the total IT expenditure went down for the first time in 15 years for SocGen, or more. We've seen the same this year. We shall be seeing that in the coming years, not only in '26, but beyond '26, because it is more a multiyear program, if you wish.

So these are more or less the context or the levers that we want to push to reach that 60%. And again, as I started saying, our commitment is absolute in that regard. And honestly, I don't think it even finishes in '26, because if I look at the landscape of banks, I mean, going from mid-70s to 60% in 3 years, in my opinion, is a good achievement. But obviously, we need to move forward. We need to go further down on that cost-to-income ratio if we want to increase our profitability beyond '26. And obviously, that is our focus.

And again, it will be a mix of -- because nothing is black or white in life, it will be a mix of further increase of the revenues. And I think certainly, we will have opportunities. We will have opportunities there in French retail. We will have opportunities there in Financial Advisory. We will have opportunities in Ayvens. Once it's finished the merger, I think it will be a very profitable part of the business to put some RWAs to work.

But it will also be costs, because it's not only the cost-to-income, because cost-to-income, it's comparable to other players, but up to a point, because some other bank -- for example, I don't think a bank with the kind of mix of businesses that we have can aim to have a cost-to-income in the low 40s space, because we're a different animal, if you wish. Our CIB weighs more, which has a higher cost-to-income and so on and so forth. But when we look not only at the cost-to-income, but at costs and we look at ratios like costs on RWA, we are higher than our peers. We are probably at around 4.5% and the best-in-class in that regard is probably more in the 3.5% space. So I think there is also going to be -- I mean, the discipline on cost will go beyond certainly 2026.

And RoTE is progressing well towards 9%, 10% target in '26. Longer term, why would the profitability be structurally lower than the sectors?

So again, I don't think now -- once we've streamlined the bank, I don't think there's anything in the perimeter of the bank that would prevent us to keep on increasing our profitability. And the increase of that profitability, all things being equal, will be based on a further reduction on the cost-to-income. And again, this is an expansion of revenues, which I think after '27, some of our businesses are still in the restructuring mode, like Ayvens. It's a #1 player. So certainly could expand the revenues going forward. But also, as I mentioned, French retail. Also, I think, on the Financial Advisory world of things. And certainly on the reduction and firm cost discipline on all the cost side of things beyond '26. So again, it's a cost-to-income issue.

Yes. Okay. Great. Coming back to French retail. Net interest income has finally rebounded in Q3 with some encouraging signs on the lending volumes. Have you seen any impact from the political uncertainty? And when can we see better trends for deposits? And one of your French peers expect French retail revenues to grow more than 5% in coming years. Can SocGen deliver the same growth? And if not, why?

Okay. So going one by one on the few questions that you mentioned. Yes, I think we've seen a clear trend this year on French retail. So it's been going up through the course of the different quarters. If I look at Q3 on Q2, NII was up 3.5%. So we are already seeing the realization of those trends. I think French retail will keep on this trend going forward. So we should be seeing a slight increase in revenues going forward in the coming quarters.

This is driven basically by 3 or 4 levers. So on the one hand, it's by the stabilization of the mix of deposits. I think this has taken longer than other geographies in Europe for a number of reasons. Among them, for example, when I look at France, we don't have such a homogeneous loan-to-depo among the different banks as the one that I had in Spain, where all banks were below 90%. So here there's a little bit more of a variety of situations, and that fosters volumes and therefore, there's more competition. But now we see that the mix between term and deposits have come to an end or actually, it's perhaps slightly going down now in this quarter, but at least it's stabilized, if you wish.

And then on the other hand, the cost of those deposits, which in France are very much triggered by the regulated products, by the Libra and the so, again, are coming down, because rates are coming down. So overall, the cost of funding is coming down, and it's coming down for everybody in the sector. So I agree with you that some of the trends that some of our competitors may be sharing, we're in the same place, if you wish.

The second lever that could foster NII growth in the future or is fostering right now, it's the repricing of the fixed assets, especially the mortgages. And this is already happening, but it will take a long time, because these are relatively long duration assets, 8 to 10 years. So we will see it, but it will be slow, but it's also a positive trend, if you wish, going forward. And the third one could be volumes, okay? Volumes is very much linked to the macro and very much linked to GDP, if you wish. We are in an environment where we see that France is in the 1% space growth for this year and probably the coming years, a little bit more if we add inflation. So we could have some volume growth. Again, not something very spectacular, because it's driven by the macro basically. But all in all, these trends are certainly showing the right direction that we shall be seeing NII growing in the coming years.

As to give a specific guidance, we don't provide it, honestly, because there's too many moving parts. I mentioned, it's a number of clients. It's the mix between site and term. It's the cost of funding, which is driven by external parties. It's the volume growth, which is driven by GDP or the macro. But all in all, everything, it's in the right direction. Everything shows that everything should be growing, and therefore, we should keep on seeing an expansion not only in '25, but obviously in the years to come, because we all play with the same grounds and roads, if you wish.

And you're not seeing any impact from the political...

Sorry, you mentioned that one. Honestly, no. I mean, nothing on the asset quality side, and I don't know if that was your question, but on the asset quality side, this is much more driven longer term, especially in individuals, because it's basically driven by GDP, it's driven by unemployment rate, and it's driven by real estate prices and all those things. I mean, while mild in the case of GDP, but it's positive. So it's not impacting -- we're not seeing anything on the unemployment. We're not seeing anything on the price of real estate. On the other hand, a slow growth does have an impact on loan demand, but that was already the case before. So nothing new that we have seen.

And then finally, if you wish, because we're talking about NII, but it's worth remembering that the full revenues of this segment is slightly different from other geographies because, for example, if I compare to Spain, we have 50% of NII and 50% of fee business in France, while Spain is probably 2/3 and 1/3, which gives again stability to the revenue line and actually fees in France have a very good trajectory, because they're very much based also on the fact that a vast part of the savings of the country go off balance sheet towards the insurance wrappers or the mutual funds. Actually, we've seen that the client funds are growing through the course of all this year.

Great. And I now ask on the BoursoBank. The bank has already achieved this target of 8 million clients. Do you still expect to slow down the pace of client acquisitions to achieve the more than EUR 300 million net profit target for '26? Or I mean, how far are the profits from that level?

So again, we'll come back to our commitments as per the CMD. And in BoursoBank, we had basically 2. So one was to achieve 8 million clients by the end of '26, and the second one was to also achieve EUR 300 million in net profit. So we're committed to all our targets, and it couldn't be less in BoursoBank. On the client side of things, we've been able to reach the target well ahead of schedule. So basically, we were already at 8 million clients in July, basically. And at the end of Q3, we are at around 8.3 million clients. And we're going to keep on growing our clients during the course of '25 for certain with the same pace.

I think, honestly, this is an asset I didn't know when I joined. I was very surprised about it. I think it's an asset that has huge potential, coming from retail, which is the vast part of my previous experience. This is an asset which is growing 20% clients every year, 75% growth in '21, so a huge expansion, while they're only losing less than 4% of the clients every 12 months, which, again, in my experience in digital deposits or digital clients or digital banking, it's a rate that I haven't seen.

Especially if you take into account that by definition, when you join BoursoBank, you need to be bancarized, because that's the strategy we decided. So basically, you are joining BoursoBank, and BoursoBank is your second bank by definition, if you wish. And you're joining because you're being offered a good proposal. So the fact that 12 months down the road, you are still a client of BoursoBank, and less than 4% are leaving, that can only be driven by the fact that you're being engaged into more relationship with the bank, if you wish. And that's driven again by the fact that we have the products and we have the NPS, because we're #1 NPS in France. We basically deliver what we promised, and that's why people are retaining BoursoBank.

So that has also helped on the fact that we have achieved the amount of clients with lower expense than when we thought. When we disclosed this back in '23, we shared with the market that we thought that reaching the 8 million threshold of clients was going to cost us around EUR 150 million of negative GOI, and we've never had negative GOI since '23. So it's been cheaper, if you wish, than expected. Now for next year, we want to show the monetization of our clients, again, and share it with everybody. So we're fully committed to delivering the EUR 300 million of net income. That's actually, I just mentioned before, one of the triggers that should help us reach the 60% cost-to-income.

And what we're revisiting right now, it's our overall strategy, because we also think that it would probably be the wrong strategic decision to stop growing our client base, because, again, as I mentioned before, well, this is a bank which has north of 8 million clients and 1,100 employees. So this is a bank that, in my opinion, has the option to be a significant player in the French market, a significant disruptor in the French market.

When I look at what a retail bank needs to deliver or provide, well, if I oversimplify, there's 3 things that you need for a retail bank to work. So first, you need to be able to provide the products. And the fact that BoursoBank started as a broker a long time ago has made it possible that they offer 40, 50 products, so basically 99% of what any given client could need, if you wish to. Second, obviously, you need to provide those products competitively. So basically, you need to be able to provide good prices. The fact that you have 1,100 workforce allows you to be cheap, so it's basically competitive.

And then the third thing that you need is that the client has that need. My point being that you need to work on the vintages in the mid, long term. You cannot monetize everything in 2 years because, for example, if the amount of clients or the average of clients that we have in BoursoBank, which are obviously different from the ones that we have in the book are younger, I might have the best mortgage in place, but they need to have the need of buying a house. And it will come, but not necessarily in the first 6 months.

My point being, when I look at the NBI per client in my brick-and-mortar network. And in BoursoBank, one is significantly higher than the other, because the vintages are much longer. But we are seeing already the monetization of the current vintages. This can be seen, for example, on the assets under management per client. We have 10,000 -- we have EUR 76 billion in assets under management in BoursoBank. So that's roughly EUR 10,000 per client, which is a very sizable amount in retail overall, not even in digital. So back to your question, yes, we are aiming to reach a EUR 300 million threshold of net income next year, while we're studying opportunities on how to keep on growing our client base, because I think it's the right strategic decision going forward.

Okay. Great. Now turning to GBIS. It is on track to deliver another strong year on very supportive market conditions. That said, your equities business seemed to have underperformed peers recently. What is driving this? And also, do you have any concerns on your exposures to private credit? And how is your partnership with Brookfield going?

All right. So basically, the business is doing good. So it's been doing good all through the year. It's done good in the third quarter. GBIS, our CIB business has grown -- revenues went up 2% this quarter and costs were down 1%. So basically, the jaws are expanding rapidly. We reached RONE in the north of 17%. So again, pretty healthy. When we break down that between the 2 main businesses that we have, which are, on the one hand, the markets, and on the other hand, GLBA. Markets were slightly up versus probably record year last year. So the base was very high last year, while GLBA was 7% ahead of last year. Overall, the business, GBIS, was ahead of consensus -- slightly ahead of consensus. When we look specifically -- so we're happy with the evolution of the business, if I may, on a super conducive 2024 altogether, a record year 2024.

When we look at the markets business, again, we are up versus probably a record third quarter last year, as I mentioned, with a significant impact of day 1 accounting. So you might remember last year, in this business, we made in the full 2024, EUR 5.9 billion of revenues. And when we were guiding for '25, we guided for EUR 5.5 billion. That was based on 2 things and we disclosed this and shared this with the market last year.

The first one was that last year, we had a positive impact coming in from day 1 accounting of EUR 200 million, which we were not expecting for this year. And a significant chunk of that was in the third quarter. So that's an impact from one quarter to the other. The second one was that last year, we had very conducive conditions, market conditions, and we thought perhaps this year, we wouldn't. I think we are now well on track to have a very, very good year overall in the markets business.

This quarter, specifically, if we were to adjust for this day 1 accounting, which last year was positive. And this quarter actually is negative because we've been very active commercially. This means that we have built reserves, which has a negative impact in P&L, but it's actually good, because we will see those reserves coming through. In the future, the Global Markets business would have grown above double digit, basically with our peers, if you wish. On top of that, we have been -- and sorry, within these Global Markets, we had an evolution of equities minus 7%, which again, without the day 1 accounting, would have been high single digit, and then FIC, which was basically plus 7%, so it did well already.

On top of this revenue evolution, we were very disciplined in costs. Costs went down 5%. So the gross operating income for the business year-on-year was plus 12%. As per the equities itself, we also need to take into account the mix of our businesses. We are more leveraged towards secured financing or basically quantitative market making. And for those businesses, probably the volatility in the market has been less conducive than for prime brokerage or cash equities, which is where we have a lower market share in this regard. So the combination of all things are explaining the evolution. Honestly, in our case, we are quite happy about the evolution through the course of the year.

Okay. And...

Sorry, and you talked about private credit.

Private credit, yes.

So our exposure to private credit, it's small. We disclosed it in Q3. We have around 1.3% of EAD or 1.9% if we include securitizations. We had no exposure to any of the names that have been on the headline in the last few months. We focus this business only with the top Tier 1 players, and we never write a specific underlying based on names, but based on the overcollateralization of the underlying of the specific transaction, based always on a very granular and diversified base. So that's our focus here. I mean, in general, for the banking industry, diversification is a key to control risk, specifically in this business, which is a business in which we've been working for a long time. It's not something that we are a newcomer into a crowded place. So we've been in this space for a long time. So we're certainly not going to be rushing to get positions where we are not comfortable with the risk.

I mean we're not changing certainly our risk approach to this or any other business given now that we have excess capital. It could be easy for the bank, for example, a bank as large as us to grow rapidly, that would lead us probably to the wrong place in the future. We're not doing that. We are being quite cautious on that regard. And actually, you mentioned Brookfield. I think this is a good example. We're doing less good than we expected. We're growing slower than we expected within our Brookfield JV. Why? Because we're offering products with lower risk and therefore, lower yield and the market now has more appetite for higher yield. I think at some point, this will come back, and we are still very hopeful on this joint venture. And I think these kind of products will again have some demand in the future. But right now, the market is more focused on riskier products than the ones that we are offering on the table.

Great. Maybe I can ask on Ayvens as well. I mean, when do you expect to see some improvement in the fleet volumes? And how much can total margins improve from the current levels of 570 basis points roughly?

So Ayvens, the group decided last year to change a little bit the strategy based on the market conditions. So we pulled the brakes on the fleet production because we thought that the margins at which they were being printed were too competitive. And also, we had uncertainties as to the evolution and the residual value of electric vehicles. Honestly, now in hindsight, I was not there, so looking back from the future, I think it was the right decision to be made. We've seen since then a significant margin expansion towards the 570 that you were mentioning a minute ago, while some of our peers are below 500 basis points and reducing margins while we have increased margins.

And also, we reviewed all the residual value of our electric vehicles last year. And although we do it every quarter, we have not had to do any further appraisals or impacts. We have not taken any impact through the course of this year. Now the fleet is relatively stable. We have around 3.2 million cars. We have been revisiting our position this year with brokers in the U.K., with the fleet in Germany or in Turkey for inflation, so on and so forth. And I think we've done that job.

In the middle of that, we're in the middle of the merger of ALD and LeasePlan, which is a complex merger, because it entails a very large amount of geographies and countries, so a big number of legal entities plus the merger of different platforms plus, just not to avoid any kind of fine, becoming a bank. So it's a complex situation. We are well on track. We are aiming to have a cost-to-income of 57% this year and then 52% next year. I think next year, we should see a stability on the earning assets. And I think there's certainly an opportunity, while protecting margins, as you mentioned. And I think there's certainly an opportunity to grow that fleet from there onwards.

We're #1 player. So we have the size, increasing our fleet once we have certainty, and we have the grounds for the merger in place, and therefore, we are more agile to do it, and have more resources to do it. it's certainly somewhere where the operational leverage is very high. For every other car that we sell, we don't necessarily need more people to do it. So it's a big operational leverage on 50% of the income, which is that leasing.

On the maintenance part, there is, of course, some cost involved. But overall, the operational leverage is very high. So this is a business that next year shall be making mid-teen returns on return on tangible equity, so above the group. So it's going to be accretive for the group. So certainly, once the grounds for that growth are without putting in risk the margins, we are certainly going to be there.

Okay. Wonderful. Just conscious of time, so maybe I can stop here and checking if anyone has any questions in the audience. Don't be shy. No? Yes, Gigi.

It's Gigi Sparling from JPMorgan. You talked a little bit earlier about the share buyback proposals in the budget. But could you talk a little bit more broadly about the political landscape in France? Some of the comments which have come out of various political parties seem quite anti-bank, for example, cap on bank fees. Do you have any thoughts about what's going on behind the scenes, please?

So not much to say about behind the scenes, to be honest with you. I think, my personal view, what we're seeing in France, it's a very fragmented parliament. I mean it's something similar to what I've seen perhaps in the previous -- my country of origin, where we've had a fragmented parliament for a number of years already. The good thing is that the governance in Europe is very strong. So even if you don't have an agreement, the budgets are rolled over. So we can look at Spain. I think we haven't had a budget for the last 3 years, and I'm not sure whether we're going to have a budget anytime soon. But the previous budget is rolled over. And therefore, there's no lockdown like in the U.S.

As a matter of fact, when rolling out budget, that's even good for deficit, because you don't roll out inflation. So if that was to happen in France, for example, we could see a reduction of EUR 25 billion to EUR 30 billion in deficit. I don't know if it's going to happen or not. Obviously, you don't have the insight, but it wouldn't be the worst scenario from a deficit standpoint.

Again, what we've seen is that in fragmented parliaments, you see a lot of proposals. And again, I've seen this in my previous country of origin for a few years. The vast majority of those proposals never come through. Is this going to be the case in France? I don't know. We'll have to wait and see in that regard. But certainly, when you're talking about fees, when I look at the fees that we are charging in France compared to the fees that are being charged in the rest of Europe, in France are already lower. So there's no specific reason to push for lower fees because we are charging more than others because we are in a completely different situation in that regard.

Any other questions?

I'll ask a question.

Yes.

Stephen Kirk from Caxton. Do your cost saving targets have much baked in for benefits from AI? When you talk about your cost-to-income targets, which are already quite impressive. But it strikes me that you either believe AI is going to change the world or it's not. And if it is, I can't see why it won't have a sort of radical effect on the cost basis of banks. I mean, for instance, one of the big lawyers in London this morning has said they're going to reduce admin staff by 10%. So you're starting to see some quite dramatic announcements. Yet we haven't really heard anything from any of the banks on it.

Sure. So I think, on the targets that I set for 2026, I'm not counting on AI. So that's basically driven by other -- the rest of the layer, the levers that I tried to explain before. I think AI right now, it's very efficient on coding. I think AI is very efficient on summarizing large amounts of information or even extracting information from very different data sets, if you wish. I certainly think there is a big potential in AI for all industries. And of course, banks will be one of those. I am not so certain that, that's going to be so fast in the banking industry because, for example, I can see opportunities in AI in the models, for example, in modelization of all our relationships.

But again, all those models need to go through the supervision of regulators. And I'm sure regulators will ask for a proof. So basically, some period where you have 2 models running in parallel, where you have the former old model, if you wish, and the new AI model, and they will need some time to prove that the models are working at the same speed or better speed, if you wish, that they are reliable at the end of the day. So it's not something that you -- I mean, in my experience, certainly, I've never had a model approved with the regulator in none of my shops in a couple of quarters. It takes much longer than that.

So I do think there are theoretically vast opportunities coming out of AI. And for certain, that would impact the cost basis of banks. I think this is something that we will see down the road. We're not counting on that on '26. But of course, as you can imagine, we're trying to do a lot of things on that regard. But I think it's more something that we will see beyond 2026.

Great. I think we're running out of time. But Leo, thank you very much for your insights. Thank you, everyone, for attending this session. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to the Societe Generale Conference Call. Mr. Slawomir Krupa, Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Leopoldo Alvear, Chief Financial Officer, will present the group's third quarter and nine months 2025 results. [Operator Instructions]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Societe Generale Conference Call. Gentlemen, please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our nine-month 2025 financial results presentation. I am pleased you could join us today.

In line with previous quarters, we are once again achieving a solid performance. The financial indicators remain above our annual financial targets. Our quarterly and nine-month revenues have grown significantly compared to last year. This is happening while we continue to demonstrate discipline with regards to RWA organic growth, strict cost control and risk management.

Over the first nine months of the year, revenues were up by 6.7% compared to last year, reaching EUR 20.5 billion at the end of September, excluding asset disposals. This highlights the strength and relevance of our commercial franchises and validates our strategic decision to be a more compact and synergistic group that focuses on its strengths.

At the same time, we remain committed to reducing our cost base in a structural and sustainable manner. Costs are down by more than 2% for the first nine months of the year, excluding asset disposals versus nine months '24. The result, very strong positive jaws and the cost-to-income ratio of 63.3% over the first nine months of the year. That's better than our 2025 target of below 65%.

In terms of credit risk, for the first nine months, the cost of risk remains in line with our guidance at 25 basis points. Asset quality remains sound as we continue to navigate the macro environment. Overall, the group net income reached EUR 4.6 billion in nine months ' 25 and a group return on tangible equity of 10.5%. That represents an increase by 3.4 percentage points versus nine months '24, and it puts us well on track to meet our 2025 target of a ROTE around 9%. These solid earnings contribute to the further strengthening of our capital position. The CET1 ratio is up by 20 basis points this quarter despite a slight increase in organic RWA. And ultimately, the CET1 ratio stands at 13.7% at the end of September 2025.

As mentioned last quarter, it takes into account the EUR 1 billion additional share buyback program, which was completed this month. This performance keeps us above the updated targets we set for 2025. It marks another step in the right direction, but our goal is to do better, and we will. Making the bank even stronger will require continued focus, perseverance and determination.

A little more than two years ago, we held our CMD. And since then, we have made tangible progress. First and foremost, the bank has a much stronger capital base. This is a cornerstone of our strategic road map to ensure greater stability amid the inherent fluctuations of the macro environment. And with a CET1 ratio of 13.7% in the Basel IV regulatory environment, the group is well above its target of 13%. This allows us to successfully pursue our dual ambitions of supporting our sustainable growth and providing additional returns to shareholders.

With regards to operational efficiency, there is certainly more to do. But to date, the group has already significantly improved its operating leverage. That is reflected in the sharp drop in the cost-to-income ratio, which improved from more than 70% on average over the five years before the CMD to 63.3% over the first nine months of 2025.

Again, this is primarily the result of our relentless and successful execution of our cost-saving initiatives across all businesses. This is also the result of the solid and improving commercial performance of our core businesses. Consequently, the group significantly increased its profitability, its ROTE, which almost doubled despite a higher denominator as it rose from 5.8% on average over the 2018-2022 period to 10.5% in nine months '25. Coupled with the implementation of share buyback programs, which have been increasing for two years, this has resulted in a substantial boost in EPS. When you compare the nine months 2025 with the average nine-month period during the five years preceding the CMD, that EPS rose almost 180%.

Increasing profitability in a sustainable manner and ensuring greater value creation for shareholders are at the heart of our commitments. In this, we are at the beginning of a rewarding journey. There is still a lot to do to get where we want to be, but real tangible results have pointed us in the right direction.

Now let me hand over to Leo, who is going to take you through our Q3 '25 performance.

Thank you, Slawomir, and good morning, everyone. As usual, let's now dig into the financial performance for the third quarter. The group results once again are a very solid set of results this quarter with a group net income of EUR 1.5 billion, second highest third quarter since 2006, leading to a quarterly return on tangible equity at 10.7% versus 9.6% in the same quarter last year. This excellent performance is the result of sustained strong commercial activity, which led to another solid increase in revenues, combined with continued strict cost discipline, leading to a strong positive jaw evolution.

In details, revenues were up by 3% versus Q3 '24, excluding disposals, and even by 7.7% when excluding also the circa EUR 300 million exceptional income booked in Q3 '24 to close out our past presence in Russia. At the same time, costs continue to decrease in absolute terms and are down by 1.1%, excluding asset disposals, demonstrating our ongoing strict cost discipline. This consequently translates into further improvement in operational leverage with a cost-to-income ratio of 61% in Q3 '25 versus 63.3% in Q3 '24 and below our annual target of 65%.

Regarding asset quality, the cost of risk remains contained at 26 basis points and within the lower range of our annual guidance. We've also made further progress in streamlining our business portfolio with the closing of the disposals in Guinea Conakry and in Mauritania.

Let's now move to Slide 7 to go through the revenue bridge, which you may now be familiar with. Excluding asset disposals for comparison purposes, which generated around EUR 400 million of NBI in Q3 '24, group revenues increased by 3% in Q3 '25 compared with last year. And as I just mentioned, by 7.7% if we were also to restate the exceptional income recorded last year in the Corporate Center in connection with the closeout of our Romanian exposure in Russia.

As illustrated in the chart, all businesses contributed positively to this solid increase. French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance, the revenues grew by 4.5% in Q3 '25 versus Q3 '24, excluding disposals. The rise is mostly driven by both NII and insurance revenues, which are up by 4.7% and 6.9%, respectively. On Global Banking and Investor Solutions, revenues increased by 1.6% compared to a very strong Q3 '24, thus consolidating a high revenue base around EUR 2.5 billion this quarter, thanks to solid performance in FICC and Financing and Advisory.

The commercial performance of the businesses within Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services are also strong with a 9.1% increase in revenues in Q3 '24, excluding asset disposals. Finally, if we include the exceptional -- exclude the exceptional income of EUR 287 million related to the exit of Russia, revenues at Corporate Center increased by EUR 175 million, mainly due to sound and improved liquidity management.

On the cost front, on Slide 8, we can see that operating expenses fell further in Q3 compared with last year, not only at group level, but also across all pillars. It perfectly illustrates how the new cost policy launched since the CMD has spread throughout the bank. Overall, on a year-on-year basis, costs are down by 1.1% this quarter, excluding disposals and by 6.2% on a reported basis. Similarly, the cost-to-income ratio declined further in the third quarter compared with last year as did the ratios for all the pillars. The group cost-to-income ratio landed at 61% in Q3, a level well below the annual target. After the first nine months of '25, the group reports a cost-to-income ratio of 63%, which makes us very confident in our ability to achieve our 2025 adjusted target for a cost-to-income ratio below 65%.

Let's now have a look at the asset quality evolution on Slide 9. The cost of risk stands at 26 basis points this quarter and 25 for the first nine months of 2025. In both cases, in the lower range of our annual guidance. This quarter's cost of risk mainly comprises Stage 3 provisions. which accounts for EUR 437 million, with notably a transfer of provisions from Stage 2 to Stage 3, which contribute to a net reversal of EUR 68 million in S1 and S2 provisions. On the later, total outstanding Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remain high at EUR 2.9 billion or 2x 2024's cost of risk. Asset quality remains robust as illustrated by the NPL ratio at 2.77%, stable from the last quarter. It is important to highlight that the group has not -- is not exposed to the recent U.S. defaulted companies, which made the headlines, and we have a negligible exposure to U.S. regional banks. Finally, the net coverage ratio remains high at 82% in Q3, up 1 percentage point from Q2 '25.

Let's now turn on to capital on Slide 10. Thanks to very strong earnings, which contributed with 18 basis points in Q3 after accruing 50% payout, the CET1 ratio of the group increased further to reach 13.7% at the end of September '25 versus 13.5% at the end of June, which represents a level around 340 basis points above MDA. The other moving parts have a global minimal net impact of 3 basis points and are split between, on the one hand, a positive impact of 7 basis points related to the group employee share ownership as stated in a dedicated press release published on 24 July, and on the other, limited negative impacts related to the RWA variation for around 5 basis points and some regulatory impacts for 4 basis points, which come after a positive contribution of 8 basis points on that topic in Q2 '25, while other items have a limited 1 basis point net impact this quarter. Last, as you can see at the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all the other capital ratios remain comfortably above the regulatory requirements.

On Slide 11, we can see that liquidity reserves remained high at EUR 328 billion, with a relatively balanced mix between cash and securities. Regarding the liquidity profile of the group, we maintained a strong liquidity ratios with an LCR at 147% this quarter and an NSFR ratio of 117%, which in both cases, represent a buffer around EUR 90 billion. We completed the 2025 long-term funding program in Q3 on very competitive terms and have even begun the prefunding of '26 program with a new senior nonpreferred debt in U.S. dollars successfully issued in September. Access to liquidity remains very good in our currencies and the deposit base remains strong, granular and highly diversified, having grown by EUR 10 billion in the quarter. Overall, the loan-to-depo ratio stands at 75% at group level.

In Slide 12, we show a summary of the P&L for the group for Q3, which we will cover in more detail in the following slides.

So let's move now to business performances on Slide 14, starting as usual with SocGen Network, Private Banking and Insurance. In Q3 '25, loans outstanding increased by 1% compared to last year, with both retail and corporate loans growing, excluding for the later state guaranteed loans, PGEs. Home loan production continues to increase strongly this quarter by 74% versus Q3 '24. Volumes of deposits are down by 5% versus last year or by 2% versus Q2 '25 in the context of continued strong growth of retail savings and investment products, which are off-balance sheet products and contribute to the continued strong momentum in asset gathering.

As we can see on one side, AUMs in private banking increased by 7% versus Q3 '24 if we adjust for disposals and reached EUR 135 billion at the end of September, EUR 3 billion more than at the end of June '25. On the other side, life insurance outstandings reached EUR 153 billion, increasing by 6% versus Q3 '24 and representing EUR 3 more billion than in June '25, thanks to continued strong net inflows.

Moving on to BoursoBank. As highlighted last quarter, thanks to a sustained growth pace of acquisition over the last two years, BoursoBank has reached its CMD target of 8 million clients, nearly 18 months ahead of its initial objective. In Q3, BoursoBank gained nearly 400,000 new clients. Since Q3 '24, it represents an increase of 1.5 million clients or 22% with a consistently low churn rate below 4%.

Assets under administration continued to grow steadily. They reached EUR 76 billion at the end of September or circa EUR 10,000 per client, which represents an 18% increase versus Q3 '24, thanks in particular to the continued strong increase in deposits of 17% versus Q3 '24. Similarly, life insurance outstanding increased by 11% versus Q3 '24, with net inflows 4x higher than in Q3 '24, while market orders grew by 38% compared to last year. On the lending side, total loans outstanding are 8% up versus Q3 '24.

Looking at the whole pillar on Slide 16. We can see that net income lands at EUR 439 million for this third quarter or 18% higher than in Q3 '24, with a RONE close to 10% under Basel IV requirements, which compares to an 8.2% last year under the previous Basel III standards. This is driven by, on the one hand, a solid increase in revenues by 4.5% versus Q3 '24, excluding disposals, largely linked to a 4.7% increase in NII despite the absence this quarter of positive base effect impact related to short-term hedges. And on the other hand, cost improvement. This is a decrease of minus 0.3% of operating expenses compared to Q3 '24, excluding disposals. Both movements lead to a cost-to-income ratio of 65.7% in Q3 versus 70.1% in Q3 '24. On the asset side, cost of risk lands at 33 basis points in Q3 '25.

Let's move now to Global Markets and Investor Services on Slide 17. Starting with Global Markets. Market activities continue to generate a high level of revenues, above EUR 1.4 billion during this quarter. They are up by 0.5% in Q3 '25 versus an already very strong Q3 '24 despite unfavorable FX impact and one-day accounting base effects. Note that restated from this day one P&L impact, Global Markets revenues would have grown by double digit. The increase in reported revenues was mostly driven this quarter by our FICC platform, whose performance improved by 12% versus last year, thanks in particular to strong momentum in derivatives and financing with growing activity in FX and rates.

With regards to equity activities, revenues remained high at EUR 824 million in Q3 '25. Year-on-year comparisons show a 7% decrease due to both a very strong basis for comparison, where Q3 '24 was the highest third quarter in 16 years in this activity and the aforementioned FX and day one accounting impacts. In Securities Services, revenues eased by minus 1% versus Q3 '24 as a result of a decrease in interest rate despite steady commercial momentum in the quarter in SGSS.

Let's turn now to Slide 18 to comment on the evolution of our financing and advisory platform. which performed very well in Q3 '25 with a 4.2% increase in revenues versus the same period last year. This strong outcome is driven by a solid growth in Global Banking and Advisory by nearly 7% versus Q3 '24, thanks in particular to both solid performance of financing activities overall with continued strong momentum in terms of origination and distribution. In addition, our DCM and ECM platforms benefited from solid dynamics in the market. With regards to transaction banking services, revenues slightly declined by 2.5% in Q3 versus Q3 '24 due to lower rates, which masked the good overall commercial performance illustrated by the continued increase in deposits.

So overall, GBIS delivers another solid performance as illustrated on Slide 19, with revenues reaching EUR 2.5 billion in Q3 '25, up 1.6% versus a very high Q3 '24, making this quarter the best Q3 for GBIS since 2009. We continue to drive costs down with expenses decreasing by 0.8% in the quarter, and the cost-to-income ratio declined 1.5 percentage points from 61.5% in Q3 '24 to 60% in Q3 '25, while the cost of risk remained moderate at 13 basis points this quarter. As a result, GBIS posted a net income of EUR 734 million in Q3 '25, translating into a high RONE of 17.4% under Basel IV.

Moving on to the International Retail Banking on Slide 20. We can see that both Europe and Africa posted good performance this quarter, with revenues up by 4.6% compared to Q3 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter. In Europe, loans are up by 6% and deposits by 2% versus Q3 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter. While revenues increased by 4% versus the same quarter last year at constant exchange rate and perimeter, supported by higher net interest income in both KB and BRD. In Africa, loans are resilient with a slight decrease of 1% versus last year at constant exchange rate and perimeter, while deposits continue to increase by 4% in Q3 '25 versus Q3 '24. When we look at revenues, they increased strongly this quarter by 5% at constant exchange rate and perimeter, largely driven by a solid level of fees across most regions.

Turning now to Mobility Financial Services. The combined business posted another strong increase in revenues this quarter by 12.4% at constant exchange rate and perimeter. Ayvens revenues contribution to SocGen is increasing by 13.2% versus Q3 '24, benefiting from positive base effect related to depreciation adjustments and nonrecurring items. When adjusted for those inspects, revenues are stable with two opposite trends largely anticipated. First, a continued increase in margin, which reaches 593 basis points in Q3 versus 521 in Q3 '24, which is basically driven by the strategy implemented that comprises this quarter some nonrecurrent elements. On the contrary, as expected and guided, an ongoing normalization of used car sales results per unit at EUR 1,100 this quarter versus EUR 1,420 in Q3 '24. Together with a tight monitoring of costs, the cost to income improved strongly this quarter to 53%, excluding UCS and nonrecurring items versus 63% in Q3 '24. Finally, regarding Consumer Finance, business delivered a good quarter with revenues up by 6.6% versus Q3 '24, still benefiting from margin expansion, mainly in France.

So in terms of the overall financial performance of the pillar on Slide 22, we see very strong positive jaws again this quarter, thanks to a solid increase in revenues of 8.7% on one hand, while on the other, a decrease in cost by 3.9% in Q3 '25 versus Q3 '24, both at constant perimeter and exchange rate. And this is notably driven by mobility and Financial Services. The cost of risk is also down at 37 basis points in the quarter versus 48 in Q3 '24. Overall, the whole pillar posted a net income of EUR 393 million, up 19.2% versus Q3 '24, adjusting for the perimeter and exchange rates. Finally, the RONE improved by 1.7 percentage points versus last year and reached 14.9% under Basel IV in Q3 '25.

To conclude with the quarterly results, let's move now to Slide 23 with Corporate Center. Year-on-year revenues are down by circa EUR 100 million due to the base effect linked to the circa EUR 300 million of exceptional income accounted in Q3 '24 related to the closing of the remaining exposure that we had in Russia. Excluding this one-off, revenues continued to improve this quarter, thanks to continued efficient liquidity management. In addition, the closing of the sale of our subsidiary in Guinea Conakry generated a positive impact accounted in net profit or losses from other assets.

Let me now give back the floor to Slawomir.

Thank you, Leo. As you can see, despite the shifting landscape, we continue to deliver on the commitments the group has made in regards to our sustainability road map. We are progressing well towards our targets in terms of financing the energy transition, and we continue to demonstrate our pioneering spirit with bold and innovative transactions. We are also driving sustainable finance through partnerships, deepening our collaboration with the IFC, for instance, and developing new collaborations with other multilateral organizations.

In conclusion, our objectives are clear and our progress is measurable. We continuously assess both in order to keep our momentum going so we can achieve our goals. We remain firmly on track, and our determination is unwavering, and we are fully committed to ensuring success.

Thank you very much. And let's now start the Q&A with our usual polite request to stick to two questions per person. The floor is yours.

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Tarik El Mejjad of Bank of America.

Two on capital, please. I mean, congrats first on this strong print again. But my question, and I think one missing part, I would say, in this print to me at least, was potentially managing more your excess capital through distribution and buybacks. So I think I have a very simple question here. Did you -- and can you share with us if you actually asked for it and didn't get the answer in time? Because you repeated many, many times that there's no point to build buffers on buffers and now it's literally you're talking 2.5 years of organic generation of buffer. So can you share with us more color.

And then I'm sure you've seen the news and share price action that the [ Barnier ] has managed to pass an amendment in the parliament on this discussion on budget on the income side, taxing from 8% to 33%, and most importantly, increasing the scope to share price or acquisition price rather than the nominal value. So, in this context, I know it's early, so -- but just maybe you can share your thoughts. In this context, would you see better value in using excess capital for buyback minorities of Ayvens or maybe you can accelerate distribution before these things go through?

Thank you, Tarik. So on the buyback, let's try and be very, very clear. So one, you know the framework. The framework is indeed, one, no intention to accumulate excess capital. Two, when considering excess capital, considering organic growth at high marginal rates of return, inorganic growth if and when it makes sense with a very conservative approach to execution risk and expected returns and return to shareholders preferably right now because of the math, still favorable to the buyback in the form of buybacks. So that's the framework. I'm repeating it so that it's very clear.

Second statement, we have been having this conversation for a while, so to speak. And I think we have been strategically predictable from this perspective. And so you should expect us to remain predictable from this perspective. Now equally at the bank conference recently, I said that buybacks and these decisions because of various factors are not necessarily quarterly processes. And finally, I would point to the fact that this quarter, we are announcing a buyback at the Ayvens level, right? This is the -- these are the parameters of what I can say.

Now in terms of the amendment that you're referring to, so for us, our understanding at this point is that it's not intended to be on the value, but indeed on the nominal. But more importantly, I would not want to comment on tax too much, especially on the race that we do observe these past few weeks and days even in the parliamentary debate. That's not my job, not my role. Obviously, if and when things are stabilized and become law, we will adjust our thinking, and you should expect us to be the most rational players out there in terms of dealing with whatever the framework is. But again, right, I would not be at this point, focusing too much on the race that you can see in terms of proposals that you can see like literally every night in France today.

Let's take a step back. France has a history of being overall, overall the rational jurisdiction where, as you can see, even this year, companies are able to go through the instability, go through some of the news flow and continue to do their job, and I expect the jurisdiction to overall remain similar in the years to come.

The next question is from Flora Bocahut of Barclays.

I wanted to ask you a first question on the cost of risk in French Retail Banking. It picked up slightly this quarter. So maybe if you could elaborate if it's a single file, it's coming from several. Is it the sign of the beginning of a slight deterioration there?

And then the second question is on the equities revenues. You mentioned in the slide pack, the negative impact from the day one P&L year-on-year. Was that very concentrated on Q3 last year and therefore, unlikely to be a drag from here? Or is there potentially a bit more drag year-on-year coming from that in the coming quarters?

Thank you. Hi, Flora. So, CNR, net cost of risk -- NCR, sorry, net cost of risk in French retail. So it fairly stable in the retail individual client part at a reasonably low level, nothing very material happening there. And indeed, you have an increase in the SME segment with basically no big files, no one-offs, but more something which is in line with what you may have seen as a market feature with the increase with the bankruptcy rate in France. So this is the explanation. It remains contained. As you can see, the cost of risk is still low. But indeed, this is the dynamic that we've seen in Q3. And we don't expect today any material deterioration at this point in time in the coming quarters, but there is a slight increase in bankruptcy rates in France.

So, in terms of the equities and the specific day one question, which indeed is the most of the explanation for the performance of equities this quarter. It's very simple. It was concentrated -- the positive impact was concentrated last year on Q3. And this year, it's a drag, which -- the absence of which would have resulted in a growth of double digit of the market revenues. So you can see it's a substantial feature, which is a positive one because, as you know, a negative impact of day one is the sign of a very strong production, right, of a very strong origination in terms of commercial activity. But indeed, it is a drag.

Now today, it's dependent on market conditions. But today, there is no reason to believe that it will remain the same constant in the coming quarters. At this point in time, it's more of a Q3 phenomenon.

The next question is from Jason Napier of UBS.

The first one, BoursoBank has turned in another really strong quarter for customer acquisitions. There's some concern amongst investors that when a good thing is going so well that you might choose to extend the investment in customer acquisitions substantially further than might have been expected. Perhaps in simple terms, could you just talk about what we should be thinking in terms of fee income -- net fee income uplift next year and the year after as you presumably do start to invest less in customer acquisition offers?

And then secondly, congrats on another quarter of very widespread beats on the cost line. I wonder whether you could talk a little bit about whether you have any sense as to what a more modern SocGen cost/income ratio might look like. We've just come off another company call talking about real hope that AI might substantially change the efficiency of modern banks. I just wonder whether you could talk about where you see the sort of medium-term cost income for the group.

Thank you. Thank you very much. So, on BoursoBank first, we have committed to delivering EUR 300 million of bottom line in BoursoBank in 2026. And we will deliver a bottom line of EUR 300 million at least in BoursoBank in 2026. And it is one of the drivers, one of the main drivers of actually reaching another very important objective, which is the 60% cost-to-income ratio at French retail banking. So, from this perspective, again, you should expect us to be predictable and to stick to our commitments.

And to your point, it will be achieved by a different balance, right, a different balance in terms of customer acquisition costs both in volume and in value because we also are working hard to deliver growth at a lower cost. And as you know, because we've spoken about this in the past, we had projected a GOI investment, a negative GOI throughout the plan to reach BoursoBank's Bank's objectives in terms of customer acquisition of minus EUR 150 million. The reality is that we have executed the plan and actually more than executed the plan with largely positive contribution from BoursoBank. So working on volumes, working on cost of the customer acquisition is what's going to help us achieve the objective, still generating growth, but again, with a different balance so that we can deliver on our commitments.

In terms of the cost line, I mean, I'm not going to go beyond in terms of guidance here beyond what we have for 2026, which is, as you know, a 60% target -- below 60% target for the group and for French retail. But I can tell you two things, right, before moving to AI is that we are, and you see this quarter after quarter, working very diligently, and we are very focused on continuing to improve our efficiency, right? We recognize that there's substantial room to do better.

I said in the past that I don't see any reason, any philosophical or otherwise reason for SocGen not to be delivering something which a comparable business model and jurisdiction, but something that would be much closer, if not within the best average performance of the European banks, again, adjusted for business mix and jurisdiction, but which clearly points to something in the next cycle that would be, well, significantly lower than 60%. I'm not saying anything that you wouldn't expect here, but that's how we're thinking.

Then the AI piece, I think it's an absolutely critical topic for anyone really, but for banks indeed because of the nature of our business where you do have a lot of processes and technology, which resembles to some extent, a big factory where you would expect naturally significant improvements in efficiency and in the cost base linked to AI.

I think what we need to recognize is that in our heavily regulated environment, the pace of final implementation at scale of these tools will be a process, right? You know how demanding the regulators and supervisors are in terms of model validation. You can imagine that for something processing sensitive data and processes in a highly regulated banking environment, you will have expectations in terms of the quality of the modeling underpinning the AI solutions.

So it will happen. It will happen at scale, and it will continue to drive substantially the costs down and actually the client satisfaction and the quality of service and actually maybe quality of risk management up, but it's something which will be taking some time, in my view, to be really at scale and widely adopted within the banks.

The next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

I have two. The first one is a follow-up on the capital distribution point. Some banks are doing buybacks twice a year, and some banks just do a large one in Q4, for example. So how should we think about the cadence of your buyback? Should we think that come Q4, you most likely distribute everything down to 13% or close to that? Or would you keep something for the second half of the year?

And then secondly, HSBC took a provision on some tax -- withholding tax trading issues related to France. I'm wondering if there is any read across for SocGen or if you have any comments here?

So, on the first point, it is true that as much as we had already in place the normal distribution, annual distribution buyback part of this policy. It's true that we executed our first additional share buyback this year. And so we're in the, let's say, the beginning of a process, which will eventually have some regularity depending on the performance, et cetera, and the excess capital position.

But indeed, the way we think about it is that we do have the annual distribution as part of the Q4 -- and during the year, depending on the position, at this point, it's more position driven, right, and taking into account all the processes that are involved in potential additional distribution, we follow this pace, if you will, right? I hope that, that's clearer than the usual Fed chair explanation, but this is where we are.

But, sorry, so just to follow up to make sure I understand. Of course, you have a 50% payout half-half the buyback. So we all expect that in Q4. But I think it will be rational to expect an additional one given the excess capital starting point. Is that not a realistic expectation for Q4?

I mean I don't want to comment on the expectation, but I'm going to comment on something else you said, would it be rational? Yes, it would be rational.

Question on the tax side for -- with the competitor that you mentioned. Of course, I don't know much about that rumor, and we don't comment specifically on the situations. All I can tell you is that we have not booked anything nor are planning in the short term to book anything on this topic at SocGen Ten.

The next question is from Jeremy Sigee of BNP Paribas Exane.

A couple of follow-ups on topics that have already been touched on. Firstly, I just wanted to check, you're not changing your full year '25 guidance, but you're obviously way ahead at the nine-month stage. I just wanted to check that you're not flagging deterioration or adjustment back down again in Q4. We shouldn't interpret anything from that. Is that a fair thing to say?

And then second question, just you mentioned, obviously, we've seen the Ayvens share buyback. I just wondered how you position in relation to that. I can't see whether you've said that you're going to participate in the buyback or whether this is an opportunity to adjust your own shareholding in Ayvens.

Hi. Thank you. So, on the first question, an important question. I'll be very clear is to be interpreted exactly the way you said it. So there's absolutely no message regarding the Q4. It's a process thing whereby we do not update our annual targets every quarter. And we do confirm, and we said it very clearly that we are above -- well above our full year 2025 target and that you should infer from this that in normal market conditions, which is our base case expectations at this point, we will, of course, outperform the target, right, just mathematically.

One only nuance, which we have discussed in the past is -- you should, in normal business circumstances, expect the Q4 to have a run rate slightly different from the average of the year because of usually, right, the seasonality of costs with all kinds of true-ups that happen in Q4 and also with sometimes a slightly softer revenue generation, especially in the CIB. But apart from this totally business as usual phenomenon, yes, clearly, if you do simple math and assuming normal market conditions, we would outperform the targets.

In terms of the stake in Ayvens, post share buyback, we're going to move from roughly 53% to 55% of ownership. And this is the only thing that's going to happen. We're very happy with this position. We have full control. We work hard on making this asset, and you can see the improvement, including this quarter, making this asset as profitable and as strong as possible, and we're happy with the current situation and with the increase to 55%.

The next question is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

I guess just coming back to the -- I guess, two things. Coming back to the capital distribution question. As I read this amendment, it does look like it's on the -- what they refer to as the valeur de chaque and not the valeur nominale. And I'm wondering if that sticks through the budget process, how would you then think about mediating your capital returns and managing the capital returns because that's clearly less effective. So I guess a thought process on that.

And then I can't -- I didn't hear you answer Tarik's question necessarily as to whether or not you'd actually applied for a buyback this time. So I'm confused as to why Ayvens went for one and you didn't in the second quarter. So that's question on capital return.

And then more of a fundamental question on the business. Can you just talk about some of your cross-selling potentials in France because you've got life insurance, private banking AUMs at a record high. You've got home loan production up 74% year-on-year. I guess, how can we expect this home loan production to translate through to cross-selling? And how are you benefiting from that today?

Thank you. So, on the capital distribution, yes, first, you didn't hear my answer to Tarik's question because I didn't answer directly whether we have filed...

I was being diplomatic.

Yes. I know. Thank you for that. And simply because, I mean, if I start to comment on what I'm filing or not filing with the ECB, we're filing so many things every week that it would be a difficult process to follow.

Listen, again, right, take comfort from some of my other answers. We have been extremely rational and consistent in looking at this. And while going through all the processes involved, and ultimately, by the way, the decision of the Board, but we do intend to remain rational, extremely rational as it pertains to managing the excess capital. And today, risk-adjusted, the SBB is obviously the best option.

In terms of the tax thing, again, right, I mean, this just came out. I don't want to comment specifically. If it were to stick, so hypothetically, this was your question. If it were to stick and be really substantial and not on nominal value, therefore, not so substantial, we would simply adjust the maths, right? And again, choosing between organic, inorganic and any inorganic opportunity that we would have. And SBB, we would very rationally, like you would expect us to do, including, of course, like considering the cash distribution as well, we would make rational mathematically sound decisions in terms of how to deal with the excess capital.

In terms of the cross-selling opportunity and home loans, you're spot on. I mean, in many jurisdictions, not all of them. But clearly, in France, the home loan is an anchor product, an anchor product because, one, its features, including its long-term fixed rate features usually at competitive rates because of the market dynamics is making the customer stick with you for usually a long time, right? I mean the number is actually in decades. And so it allows you to develop a relationship across the entire offering of the bank, and you pointed that out, our performance, both in terms of the private banking. I'll come back to private banking for a second -- in a second. But in terms of the private banking, but also in terms of all the investment products. And you see that our pace of fundraising in the life insurance investment envelope is extremely high. It's market-leading and is extremely high.

Just to give you a sense, it's a pace which is well, well, well above almost double the size of our inventories in the space. So we're doing extremely well there. The Private Bank is doing extremely well. And the private bank is deeply connected with our retail operations. So it's not -- you have obviously an ultra-high net worth team and segment, if you will, but it is also very connected and by connected, some of the teams are actually embedded within the teams of the retail bank so that we can extract structurally on an industrial basis, if you will, the growth in value and the growth in assets that our individual customers experience throughout life. And usually, yes, it started with home loans. So this is exactly the strategy.

The only thing I'll add is, nevertheless, you still need to make sure, right, that basically the investments you're making in terms of the home loans are worth it and that you have constantly an investment case that works mathematically.

What I'm trying to say here is there have been times in the French market, take, for instance, '22 and '23, where the market was pricing this product because of all kinds of usually rate considerations, but not only eventually the competitive dynamics at a deeply, deeply negative level in terms of margins. So we had retrenched substantially at the time with production rates down 70% because while the logic of the anchor product and the investment in the long-term relationship is a prevailing one in the French market, on the other hand, there are a level of prices, which obviously don't make sense in terms of this investment. So we have been, I think, very nimble and conservative when considering this. But yes, the level of cross-selling is very important within this pillar.

The next question is from Chris Hallam of Goldman Sachs.

Two quick questions, both on equities. First, how far through the build-out of the cash equities platform would you say you are, I guess, for about 18 months or so on from the announcement on Bernstein? And how would you assess the market share opportunity on the one hand there versus the potential for, I guess, increased competitive pressure and capital release on the other?

And then the second question, it's a bit of a follow-up to the earlier question on withholding tax. I guess thanks for the clarity there. What would the threshold be for either taking a provision or settling? I guess, how do you see this playing out from your side? And how should we think about the quantum of the outstanding risk?

Thank you. So, on your first question, we're well advanced now. And we will be closing in '25 our first full year with the caveat, which we discussed in the past in this call, that the U.S. operations are not yet fully integrated. They will be next year. So -- but you're talking about the contribution from Bernstein basically of roughly EUR 200 million already, right? So it's a substantial enhancement to the franchise. And if you see some of our rankings, it has helped us break into the top 10. And if you look at some of what we have been able to achieve in the U.S. market in terms of primary equity, having, for the first time, run a significant bookrunner mandate and which delivered -- I'm not going to comment on with the number, but not insignificant contribution to our primary equity. So let me put it this way.

All the assumptions are valid. So in terms of the trading revenues, we are firmly holding at the addition of our respective market shares. The team is happy. The retention level is extremely high, much higher than what we expected.

In terms of the research, we are making the forays that we were expecting. And the only disappointment it's not about us. It's about the primary equity market in Europe, which, as you know, has been more than subdued in the last few years. So we're happy, and we will be continuing to investing and with the integration of the U.S. -- full integration of the U.S. platform next year, we'll be making another step in this direction.

In terms of the withholding tax, I mean, again, right, I mean, you can't expect me to comment specifically on these kind of files. But my earlier answer was clear. And the way you should think about this is -- let me put it this way, right? If we have the stance, which obviously, as you can imagine, as a matter of process, it is not just a discretionary decision of management, but it goes through all the governance, including the auditors, is that it points to a position that we think we have in this matter.

The next question comes from Andrew Coombs of Citi.

I think most of my questions have been answered, but perhaps I can do one on French retail and one on international retail. OpEx management, you previously answered about no reason why you can't be comparable to other European banks after adjusting for business mix and jurisdiction. And I think thus far, your cost saves have been pretty broad-based. But from here, the major levers you can pull in French retail? Or do you think it is much broader than that? And I'm thinking more about headcount considering the amount that your branch network has come down by?

And then second question on international retail. Are you happy with the perimeter now?

And can you just touch upon some of the volume growth you're seeing both in Czech and Romania?

Thank you. So, on the very last piece, I'll leave the floor to Pierre on the volumes in Czech Republic and Romania, and I'll address all the others.

In terms of the -- my comment about jurisdictions is simply -- or business mix is simply to recognize that if somebody has a very pure, for instance, retail banking mix, monoline mix in a jurisdiction that happens at that point in time to benefit from strong dynamics in terms of rates, for instance, while, obviously, you would not be able to compare just the cost to incomes one-for-one between us and that particular player. But on the other hand, I would like you to focus more, if I may, on the fact that this is not an excuse for us not to do our job and to continue to reduce our costs versus the per unit of revenue, of course.

But also another way of looking at it per unit of RWA, right? This is another way we're looking at it. And we think that these metrics help level the playing field, so to speak. And we clearly are aiming at continuing to increase substantially our efficiency and to decrease substantially over time our cost to income at the group level, but also at the French retail level, right, we have been improving there substantially, but we're still at 57% in Q3 '25. So you have already a pretty healthy improvement to be expected next year. But even beyond that, we do believe that we can do better, and we are working on ways to operate this business with a lower, lower cost structure as simple as that. I mean, we have been late to the game of efficiency, but we are now fully, fully committed and working on this with a lot of focus.

In terms of -- I feel like I'm missing your other question.

I think it was the perimeter of the international....

Yes, the perimeter of international retail, and then on to Pierre for the volume.

On the perimeter, we're -- listen, we're happy in the sense that virtually all our assets, not all of them, but really, really most of them deliver stable performance at a high level of return and are also managed in a very sound manner in terms of risks.

Now in the end, what we said about how we're going to manage our portfolio -- business portfolio remains true, right? So we need to make sure constantly that ROE headline is high, that ROE is above cost of equity in a sustainable manner. and some other parameters. I'm not going to list them each time, but I'll add the level of tail risk as well. And from this perspective, if and when we believe that we should be making adjustments, we will continue to make adjustments. But overall, today, the portfolio is delivering a sound average performance.

Pierre, on the volumes of KB and BRD?

Yes. So in terms of volumes at a constant perimeter and change, for KB, we see an increase in loans by 4% and a flat deposit level compared to last year.

As far as Romania is concerned, it's a big increase by 13.5% in terms of customer loans and 10% in terms of customer deposits. So this translates into an increase in NBI in both globally in Europe by 6.6% in Romania, again, at constant perimeter and change, 9% in terms of NII and 2.4% in terms of fees.

What is important is that BRD is gaining market share. The market share is up 35 bps. As far as KB is concerned, in terms of NBI, the NII is increasing by 1.7% and the fees by 2%.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

My first one, sorry to come back on this issue of the tax on buybacks and dividends. Sorry, it's just an important one. So on this topic, would you consider changing a little bit of the mix between buybacks and dividends because it looks like the tax on the dividends could be a bit lower. And how -- so from what you said earlier, I understand that you would reconsider the bit the usage of excess capital. in favor of inorganic, which would be the rational thing to do versus buybacks. So just on the inorganic, I mean, what areas would you kind of focus on?

Then my second question is also on some of the proposals that seem to be, I think, discussed today in Parliament and in France around the banking fees, the proposals from the National Rally to kind of like cap fees. So just wondering how much of an impact could that represent for your French retail business?

Thank you, Delphine. Listen, I mean, again, I need to start with the same introduction. I can't move into the business of commenting on the current -- and you know that, right? I mean country here, it is a political race for headlines, right? So I can't possibly be in the business of commenting a very intense and intensifying competition for headlines by various parties in a very divided parliament in France.

Now going back to the substance, I think what matters, and maybe this is the most important message is that whatever happens, you should expect us to be rational, right, so that we would make the calculations that need to be made and then starting off a mathematical reality, compose something which is a convincing hole, if you will, right? So meaning organic growth, organic growth is a good opportunity.

Today, on a marginal rate of return, we are able to generate high, high levels of marginal rate of return in various businesses, in particular, in GBIS, in Financing & Advisory, where the commitment of this additional capital comes also with a very high, high level of diversification from a sector perspective, from a client perspective, from a geography perspective. So in a sound way. The real limit there is to do it at a cost to income, which is not deteriorating. And second, it's in terms of risk management, of course, right, because we're not going to pour all the excess capital in organic growth regardless of the environment in which we're working.

So it's a balance, right? But it's a rational balance, but organic growth is a substantial opportunity, and you should expect us over time to allocate part of the excess capital to organic growth. Inorganic growth is -- can be an opportunity. But there, you need to really expect us to have a conservative approach in terms of risk return considerations, right?

Inorganic growth is an opportunity. We have delivered historically on some. We have failed at others. And clearly, we learned our lessons and execution risk would be always very carefully looked at. And from this perspective, share buybacks, and again, depending on what that hypothetical word might look like, might still be interesting because you need to adjust these returns for the risks taken, right? And obviously, a share buyback and/or a dividend distribution would both carry basically 0 risk to the investors versus the other opportunities.

So you should expect us to be very rational, whatever the framework might be. And I am reasonably optimistic about where this whole thing lands. And the framework will be giving us inputs into a rational, mathematically sound reasoning about returns and risk-adjusted returns for our shareholders.

And second question is on the banking fees.

On the banking fees. Yes. So I mean, it's a little bit of the same thing. So I'm not going to say what I said again. Today, one thing I can tell you, for instance, is that the banking fees, if you compare them -- retail banking fees, if you compare the revenue, sorry, to the loan outstanding, it's roughly 2.3% in France versus something which is more 3.6% in EU.

So one thing I can tell you is that it's quite easy to make the case that in terms of like the average return on risk, if you will, for a retail bank in France, we are already -- and it's to be expected given the level of competition in the market, we are already lower than the European Union.

So, I think, again, my current stance on this is that I do believe that the reason in the country of Descartes will eventually prevail in these discussions. Because I think that eventually, no one, no matter the political color in France today, wants to make the business conditions impractical in France.

The next question comes from Pierre Chedeville of CIC.

I promise not to ask the question on tax issues. Maybe a follow-up on two strategic points. Regarding consumer credit, it seems that you are a little bit in the middle of the game in terms of size. Your R is below your cost of equity, your outstanding is a little bit decreasing. But yet, we see that margins are improving in this business. So I wanted to know where do you stand from a strategic point of view with that franchise? Do you want to invest in it and develop you stay still or maybe one day, it could be something to sell?

And regarding asset management, we all know that you are concluding negotiation with Amundi. Probably you will not tell exactly where you stand there. But my question is more general. Do you think it would be interesting for you to try to develop a small part of your asset management internally for some specific areas and not depend the vast majority on Amundi. And do you think an evolution could be seen in asset management for you as this is a very profitable activity, which is lacking your global business model?

Thank you. Thank you very much. On consumer credit, I mean, you almost said it all. The overall condition of this business within our mix is improving after years of challenge, obviously, because of either regulatory aspects, the usually rates and the compression of margins linked to the negative jaws, if you will, between the funding and the allowed authorized maximum rate. Plus, obviously, some of the post-COVID normalization in terms of cost of risk, et cetera, et cetera. So all these dynamics were broadly slowing down this business and lowering its performance to your point.

So what are we doing? We're doing what we're doing everywhere, which is we'd like -- and you've seen it at Ayvens, you've seen it in International Banking. You've seen it very much at CIB. To some extent, it's a simple recipe is focus on the quality of the business and more, again, on structural profitability and margins rather than on volumes and focusing on the high-quality, high return on capital, sound risk management, in my view, is always preferable to uncontrolled growth. And that's what you're seeing happening in this business, and it is indeed improving. And for instance, like in terms of NBI, we're up 6.6% with a much, I would say, sounder generation of revenues than maybe in the past.

From a strategic perspective, it's a very important business, obviously, in the continuum of value creation within the French retail, and we have a few assets in Europe, which are performing from very well to acceptable. And similar to everything I said about our international network or any business that we have, we will continue to assess them very rigorously and in a very demanding way. And if an asset is not delivering what we should expect in terms of return versus cost of equity or again, quality of its positioning. And if we're not the best shareholder, we will not keep this asset in the long run. It's a commitment on which we have delivered, and we will be continuing to deliver.

In terms of the Amundi partnership, well, indeed, I'm not going to break any news here. But it's a strong partnership, a long-standing one, one that works reasonably well for both partners in terms of performance, in terms of revenues, et cetera. So we learn, right, as we mature. And so we are discussing all kinds of things with our partner. But we will clearly make sure that any partnership with anyone is always as balanced as possible between the product quality, the product support, the product performance and of course, the fundamental asset of the client relationship that we bring to the table.

Are we going to develop something in terms of proprietary asset management? We are. We are already in terms of some of the high end of our client base is actually serviced by an in-house asset manager. And we do intend to very selectively, exactly the way you implicitly -- you implied in your question, very selectively where it makes most sense with, again, high focus on the returns and the costs, we will be developing this further over time.

And the other way of looking at it is in alternative asset management, we are through the Brookfield partnership and through our investments in the transition fund that we have created and funded with our own equity. We do intend, for instance, through these two vehicles to increase our reach in terms of alternative asset management, where we can bring something, again, proprietary to the table and build this on an organic basis.

The next question is from Alberto Artoni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

Just two questions from my side. The first one is more strategic on the direction of return on tangible equity. I know you have a target for 2026. And -- but some competitors started to look beyond the target that they had given in the past. So I was wondering if you intend to perhaps provide in the future guidance for intermediate targets going forward?

And secondly, a more technical thing on FRTB. I think you mentioned in the past that you expect a negative impact of 40 basis points. I was wondering if that is still all true today? And what do you expect with the legislation? I know there are discussion of postponing it, potentially changing it? What is your take on that?

Thank you. So the direction of travel on ROTE is up. There's no other direction of travel. It's true for what we have been doing and long term, it's true. And it's intrinsically, by the way, linked to all the discussion we've had today about cost and efficiency and cost to income. Of course, we intend to drive the cost down while continuing to grow, right? And you've seen our growth rates, excluding disposals, which are very substantial and very balanced across the businesses. That's exactly what we want to keep on doing, which is delivering as regularly as possible as big positive jaws as we can. And it's not always going to be perfect, but we will focus all our efforts on this. And so indeed, this is how you should look at the direction of travel.

Now in terms of actual guidelines and guidances, we will -- we believe that being very transparent with our investor community, with you guys is obviously critical and expected. And so we will be at some point next year, sharing with you our detailed views about the next few years and be able to not only throw a number, right, because throwing a number is one thing, but also explain to you how we think about how we're going to get there and improve our performance and deliver value to all the stakeholders, but to investors in particular.

In terms of the FRTB, it's still unchanged estimate that we have, 40 basis points, 2027, if it happens. And for the rest, the impact from the output floors or other, let's say, tail end impact, they are all either 0 for the output floors. That's our assumption today or very, very small and long term. So this is where we are in terms of what's going to happen to FRTB.

Again, I'm not in a position to give you a firm answer. But again, I think that in the end, a little bit like the tax discussion in France, I think that in the end, people understand what is a right balance between safety and soundness concerns, which are obviously not only legitimate but important for everybody, for society and competitiveness. And I think there is a balance to be struck. And in that balance, in my view, FRTB, given the nature of regulations here and given what's happening worldwide is likely to be adjusted in my view. But of course, I can't speak for the commission and the other participants in that discussion at this point.

The next question comes from Sharath Kumar of Deutsche Bank.

I have two, please. First, on BoursoBank, very encouraging to see the evolution there. But I wanted to ask you about the risk you see from Revolut and the aggressive pace of client acquisition. Would this entail a continuing pace of higher client acquisition even in 2026?

Second one is on equities. Can you quantify the year-on-year growth, excluding the day one accounting adjustments that you had in the prior year period? The lower growth versus peers, is it a mix effect or you not being on the front foot still on organic capital deployment?

I'm not 100% sure I got the end of your second question. You asked for day one from -- for growth in equities adjusted for day one. Is that what you -- is that your question?

Yes, yes. The year-on-year revenue growth if we don't have the accounting adjustments. and how it compares with peers.

Okay. What was the point about organic growth or organic capital?

So, basically, the lower growth in equities franchise, is it to do with the mix effect? Or you not still being on the front foot for organic deployment?

I understand. All right. So in terms of the BoursoBank and Revolut question, I would say the following, right? First of all, as I said also at the conference recently, when you have a strong, highly competitive new entrants in the market, you have to pay attention. You have to make sure you understand what they're doing, you have to recognize their strength, study them and adjust if needed, right? And so this is how we are treating this market evolution, meaning very seriously.

Second comment, we are not exactly in the same business, right? If I oversimplify, they are wide geographically and reasonably shallow in terms of products. We are very focused geographically, it's restreint, but very, very deep in terms of product and in terms of client relationship. Again, as I mentioned in the past, we're talking about EUR 60 billion of assets, EUR 50 billion of deposits. You're talking about a churn with a high level of cross-selling, a churn which is well below 4%. You're talking about basically the best of both worlds, which is like a real universal bank for individuals with a very wide product range across virtually any banking product from the simplest to the most sophisticated one. But you're talking also, again, about the #1 bank in terms of client satisfaction.

So, from this perspective, we're talking about different players. But again, we are trying to make sure that we give enough attention to this new entrant. Is that going to affect directly our acquisition policies or whatever? It certainly affects our thinking about this, and we clearly want to make sure that the way we acquire clients, the cost at which we acquire client is optimized and it's my earlier answer. And with the proof point of having actually delivered a higher growth than expected with a much lower cost than expected, it shows you that we are very focused and have been for a while now on making sure that this equation works from a bottom line perspective.

But is that going to make us change radically our approach in 2026, in particular? The answer is no. In terms of the day one adjusted performance for equities, I mean, we're not disclosing it like that, but it is -- you have to think about this as high single digit for equities instead of the minus 7%. And for the markets, it's double digit -- I mean, well into the double digit if you took both businesses.

In terms of the mix, there is a bit of a mix, yes, you're absolutely right. I mean -- and even the whole day one thing, which is linked to the strength in terms of origination on our structured products platform. So you see that there, we're doing extremely well. And likely gaining significant market share currently.

On the flip side, historically, smaller activities on the flow side. We do have a slight mix effect. Remember, there's also a slight FX effect. U.S. banks obviously publish in dollars. We publish in euro. Do the math. We're talking about a 7% or 8% differential quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year versus Q3 '24 and '25. So all these things play a little bit. But the most important one is the day one, which happened to be a very high release last year and this year, the opposite trend. Thank you.

The final question is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

Just two, please. One is on the 13% core Tier 1 ratio. So assuming the tax wouldn't change, how quickly do you think you would want to be at that level?

And then just sorry for following up on litigation risk, but hopefully, that's an opportunity for you to comment. I mean, with respect to the recent Sudan litigation for BNP, if you can maybe just talk about your own legal situation, if any claims have been filed or potentially, is it already too late for any claims to be filed?

Thank you. So, on the first point, the only thing I can say is, again, right, above 13% is excess capital. And then we're not running the ship, if you will, down to 13%. Obviously, there will be always some small technical buffer. You also have temporality, right? If you think about, for instance, hypothetically, asking for SBB authorizations to the supervisor, you have a four months lead time, you build up capital during the quarter, et cetera.

So, basically, you will always be a few tens -- tens of basis points above 13%, even if you were to do systematic buybacks on the back of your capital generation. So this is how you should think about this. And then back to everything I said earlier, rational allocation between the various opportunities that we have in terms of using the excess capital.

In terms of the litigation, I mean, first of all, of course, I can't comment on something that is not mine. But we -- what I can say is since you're asking, right, we don't have any exposure to Sudan or to the of this type of things.

All right. Thank you very much. So thank you very much for your time. I know it's a busy day for you. Good luck with all the work. And I look forward to speaking with you next quarter. Thank you very much. Take care. Bye, bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Slawomir. Nice to have you again.

Good morning, Tarik. Thanks for having me.

So what a journey. 2 years ago, I remember, at the same stage, I was trying to figure out why such a downbeat strategic plan. A reminder, it was day after you leased it, 2023. Then last year, we established that it was necessary reset to expectations. But the last 2 years were a rollercoaster and required some believing, but your strategy has paid off if we go by the share price. So French Retail revenues have turned the corner in a very unstable political environment in France. You executed the cost synergies, implementation in French Retail and Ayvens, and showed sovereign business model can be resilient and [indiscernible] including CIB.

You delivered as well on the capital buildup and started to return capital as we speak. So I guess now probably the difficult partners, I'm then saying what you've done so far is a difficult, but is to start to address the profitability in the long run and how you can actually cover the cost of equity. So yes, this is -- I mean, we'll try to go through as many topics as possible in the next 40 minutes.

And maybe let's start straight through that on capital and the strategy. First on the capital, you built capital fast. I mean, you are now at 13.5% as of first half. And you generate more capital going forward. So how do we square the fast capital build with your target of being at 13% plus some margin by year-end.

I mean thank you for your kind words. I mean in the end, what's important is that in the way we communicate, when we talk about our targets, we set them and design them. We try to be as close to reality as possible and not try to deliver a marketing statement, but rather a strategic one. And so we're very happy with what we've done so far. But to your point, the main statement I can have about history here is that a lot more work is ahead of us, and we're focused on this.

Turning to your capital question, I mean we had this target of 13% by end of the plan, 2026. And for a number of reasons, we delivered faster. And so we're -- and we benefited from the postponement of FRTB as well, of course. And so we have a good problem, which is how to use this excess capital. And here, one statement, again, in the long run, we are not in the business of accumulating more capital than the target that we have. That's very important. And the thinking of everybody who's interested should be framed by the statement first. Second, we are going to address the excess capital always with the same approach, which is how to best use it in the interest of shareholders.

And there are 3 main options: One, organic growth; two, inorganic growth and then return to shareholder, arguably best way to do it in the form of buybacks. And there, we are very committed to be rational and to be good stewards of our investors' capital. We're not in the business of building up our ego or building up things for the sake of building them up. We're in the business of investing very rationally this excess capital. And today, it is fair to say that organic growth is a very good option from a marginal rate of return given the risk management framework at SocGen. There are a number of businesses where we can do this safely in a diversified manner and generate interesting returns. But obviously, with the kind of excess capital that we have, we cannot. It would be stupid to channel all of that capital into organic growth, and therefore, we're not going to do that for obvious macro risk management reasons.

That leaves us with inorganic and return of capital to shareholders. And there, from a risk return perspective, right now, the buybacks seem the best option. But we're committed not to buybacks. We're committed to making these decisions as we go in a very rational way in the best interest of shareholders based on facts and not opinions or sentiment. And ultimately, you see a Board decision.

So based on facts and rationale, if we do some quick math, I know this math is always difficult to be precise. But if you look at return on investment of buying back minorities on Ayvens, for example, versus a yield on a buyback at the current valuation, the math is becoming a bit tight. I mean is that still a favor of buyback versus acquiring more of Ayvens or [ part ]? Or is the buyback still the priority at this stage?

I mean, the logic is, again, to be strategic because excess capital is a strategic resource, which needs to be handled strategically, right? So the numbers point to something which is close in the example that you're giving. But from a strategic standpoint, you need to make the determination of why would you do one versus the other? And also, obviously, since it is about stewardship of our shareholders' capital, what is the risk-adjusted return between the two options, right? And this is how we intend to do this, very rational strategic decisions.

And in terms -- and last question on capital. In terms of the capital return policy, expectation rises now rightly on distribution, including myself. I mean, I have or full disclosure of EUR 1 billion share buyback additional with Q3. But it's just to keep the capital under control in terms of forecast. So how the communication you think will be in terms of having a clear message in terms of when to expect announcements and utilization of capital in terms of distribution?

So two ideas here. I think. Again, these are strategic decisions, right? So one thing I can say is that it's not going to be like a quarterly process of trying to square a ratio, this would make no sense. I mean this is a deeper decision that needs to be taken in that context. That's one idea. The second one is, you said it, right, the buildup was successful and much faster than initially planned. And so we are, it's fair to say, in a situation right now where we want to kind of establish some foundations, right, and some grounds for the long term. And in this perspective, we're trying to figure that out, knowing that you also have some pieces outside which are not entirely clear, and I had the discussion in an investor meeting earlier today. What about FRTB? How do you account for this, right?

Today, you cannot account for this as gone, right? Because today, this is not the statement of the supervisor. And so whatever my feelings about what is going to happen are from a management perspective, I have to account for this particular charge coming early 2027. So today, we're basically building the sustainable foundation of long-term policy. And so we'll figure that out and no announcement as far as Q3 is concerned.

So the -- I want to ask this question later, but let's do it now since you brought up FRTB. So what's your sentiment in terms of capital requirements and demand from the supervisor mostly coming. I mean, we were all worried about this on-site inspections about a year ago. Now we hear about having internal models revisions up with high risk density that pushed the market to do more of securitization and synthetic securitization. So how do you see this buildup of capital evolving when you think of your capital evolution?

Sure. I think the first element, and this was also factored in our thinking about the 13% target because back then, maybe not you, Tarik, but some people were questioning why 13%, it's too much or whatever. I had these conversations. And one of the answers, not the only one, was when you run a bank, you cannot run it close to whatever the limit is. I'm not even talking about the regulatory requirement, but the expectation of the market, et cetera. And so you have to cater for all kinds of uncertainties that are inherent to banking operations. And regulations and the part that you -- supervision more precisely, the part that you just referred to is part of the uncertainty.

The most important thing there is to have the toolbox to manage it, and capital buffer is one, obviously, the obvious one to manage anything and we're more than there in this respect. And then is what you just referred to, right, having a very strategic approach to capital management and being able from a more business than SRT perspective, the ability to react to the stimuli that you receive from the outside world, right? So that being said, I also think that we're reaching some form of a plateau in terms of the supervisory actions there. I mean, we have on-site inspections, all of us, like many times a year. But I think overall, we're closer to wherever they want us to be than to the beginning of that process.

Very clear. Thank you. Moving now into your strategy and your aspiration for to improve the profitability of the group. I'm sure you are probably thinking already of the next plan and what's the measures in terms of now converting this restructuring into higher profitability. So what would be the key pillars of your new strategy? I have a strong idea but I'll let you comment on this, and then we can dig on.

I mean it's not going to be a surprise to you. I think a key pillar, not the only one, but the key one will remain efficiency and cost management. Just to keep it simple, it's kind of obvious on the one hand, but also if you look at benchmarks in terms of cost per RWA because if you only look at cost-to-income, obviously, you're embedding top line considerations and market feature differences, et cetera, et cetera, jurisdiction differences.

But if you look at cost on RWA , I mean you're pretty close to something that is really comparable. And there, we have more work to do. And there's absolutely no reason. You've heard me say that in the past, that we would have some form of either as French banks or as SocGen, some sort of a curse and some sort of a structural inability to deliver better efficiency. And I think this remains a #1 target. When we started our work with the new management 2 years ago, we were faced with a certain situation but also major projects, restructuring projects, which were burdened, an opportunity, of course, but a burden of their own at the same time. I'm talking about the merger of the French Retail banks and Ayvens, of course. And so we had to deal with this first.

And we are, to your point, maybe we'll come back to this later, we are delivering there. But clearly, this was not the end of the battle in terms of efficiency. And across the board, across the group, not only in French Retail, we have room to do better, and we are already working on this and we will work some more. In terms of the top line, it's across the group. First, reallocating more organic capital than in the first plan, because, as you know, part of the capital buildup for it not to be dilutive was done internally and part of it was basically very strict control of organic growth. So we can release that because of the capital situation that we're in. And to the point I was making earlier, it's very, very profitable on a marginal risk-adjusted returns in many of our businesses, and that's what we intend to do. And that alone, if you do the math, and I know that you're doing them well, is also very supportive of the performance. And in the end, continuing to execute well on risk management, obviously, is key as well. So I mean, usual cocktail, but clearly, cost and efficiency are still a pillar of what we need to do.

Okay. Maybe starting with the cost part then of the cost income. I mean, often, I hear -- I mean, I've been hearing that for more than a decade, France is impossible to take out costs. It's difficult. Some have tried. What's your portion here to actually implement that? Because that's basically the name of the game for you in terms of bringing the whole group cost. This is, I would say, the [indiscernible] cost heaviest in the mix.

So I mean, first comment, and it's not about defending French reputation whatsoever. But one of the benefits of having people from outside, like Leo and bringing a wealth of experience and expertise from other markets is to challenge us to do better in a number of ways, but also sometimes to remind us that it's not easy to take out costs in Spain. Definitely not easy to take out costs in Germany and many other jurisdictions. So I think French has to serve France's image, but it's not an excuse not to do our job.

And I think in France, like in any other jurisdiction, if you're focused on taking advantage of natural attrition rates, for instance, they are actually significant in some of the pockets. And actually, in some of the most challenging pockets like French Retail, some of the attrition rates are high. And the question is, how are you using this to fuel your ability to deliver actual outcomes on costs? While at the same, obviously, optimizing and we've discussed this in the past, optimizing some of our spending. What's idiosyncratic from a cost perspective to SocGen is that when we took over 2 years ago, we had very high IT spending with outcomes, which were comparable to that of the market, right? Meaning we were not ahead of the market from a technology perspective, we were in line with the market.

So basically, we were inefficient, sorry, to a pretty large number and dealing with this, which has nothing to do with employment or whatever, which has to do with how you source your IT expenses, et cetera, et cetera, is a huge cost lever. And last year, we -- for the first time in probably ever, we reduced, in absolute terms, the spend there. We're continuing this year, and we, for instance, in this case, intend to continue optimizing this expense.

So all I'm trying to say here is that the combination of all the levers that you have, if you instead of looking for excuses, right, focus on delivering on your agenda in terms of cost efficiency, I think you can do a lot. Maybe it's slightly slower than, say, in America, for sure. But it is doable, and there's absolutely no reason to use that excuse not to do it.

So your target is 60% cost-to-income in France and group next year. Can you share with us what could be a range or a realistic level you could reach?

You mean '26 or later?

Later.

So maybe that's a little early. I don't want to give you that scope. Listen, we're focused on delivering 2026. It's very important. We don't want to kind of project ourselves, especially out there. Of course, we're working on this before delivering, executing and delivering on our promises is absolutely key from a cultural standpoint in the management team today. So we're focused on this.

And for 2026, as you know, the unpacking of how we get there has to do with no more CTAs, still over EUR 300 million this year. So no more CTA next year, which, by the way, will be like the first year, I don't know, in something close to a decade, that we will have no CTA and that whatever investments we need to make, which we are making continuously comes off the baseline of our business profitability. So that's a big piece.

The second one is obviously the contribution of BoursoBank to the cost-to-income because the acquisition cost, which was substantial, as you know, hundreds of millions come off the top line, and so this will contribute both to reaching the target in terms of cost-to-income at French Retail level and group level and obviously, supporting the ROE target.

And then as I said earlier, the continuation of all the work on the IT spend and other initiatives that we have. But there's a lot of work to do, and at the same time, obviously, delivering the last leg of the restructuring of Ayvens and moving it from whatever, a little south of 60% cost-to-income last year to the 52% target next year. So that's how we're going to do it. And then the statement for the future is we need, as I said earlier, to substantially -- continue to substantially decrease the cost base, and we will. So the next leg will be a substantial improvement over this target.

Very clear. I think you mentioned BoursoBank, and I think the [ converters ] perhaps as you put it in your CMD 2 years ago of the brick-and-mortar model and the digital model would probably contribute to that better cost efficiency overall. Could you maybe remind us because this was a while and I think it's still valid within your thinking on how you see this business evolving? How do you see that actually these 2 networks coexisting and how that will evolve?

So I mean the slide you're referring to, which indeed was important because it was -- real thinking about the business was that you have 2 assets, and we're blessed for that, that we have both today in the French market, and we're the only ones to have both to this kind of level of NBI and footprint with the clients. On the one hand, you have the traditional banking model with a very high cost-to-income, but a very high NBI per client, very high, right? And so that's one piece of the equation.

The second piece of the equation, you have BoursoBank, which handles today 8 million clients with a full fledged, that's extremely important, right? This is -- in that regard, we're very different from virtually any other competitor today from the biggest ones to the smallest ones. We have an entire full-fledged bank that has EUR 60 billion of assets and high numbers of deposit per client close to EUR 10,000 per account, right? So if you look at these things, I mean, no one else is in that kind of a situation. So these guys are running 8 million clients, #1 in client satisfaction consistently over the last decade or so, and with 1,100 people.

So here, we have something which is extraordinarily efficient in terms of costs, in terms of client satisfaction, which in retail is the name of the game and in terms of growth. And the only thing is that the NBI per client, obviously, is a fraction of what you have in traditional banking. So the cross conversion is this idea that as BoursoBank grows both in size, client base and maturity, it will, it has and it will work more and more on increasing the revenues per client. It's both the intensity of the relationship and the structure of the product offer, the ability to offer, say, a different package for high-end clients because of the breadth of the product offer, we can, right?

You can actually and I encourage you to do so. You can be banked almost like in private banking by BoursoBank as long as you accept the self-care aspect of it. And -- but growing the NBI per client, as we grow further the assets in more mature ways, so to speak, is what needs to happen there. At the same time, on the traditional banking, it's extraordinarily important to protect the top line, and this is by increasing the client satisfaction at the end of the day, while decreasing substantially the cost of operating this client base. And these 2 trends are what we need to foster work on consistently and will deliver both as we go better and better performance in French Retail, but also ultimately provide a comprehensive hedge to changing behaviors, right? And in the end, yes, maybe we have that online asset, which has taken over, maybe this is 10, 15, 20 years from now, has entirely taken over the business. But by then, it's probably the #1 bank in France.

That's very clear. And then it's a good transition. I mean, the competition on digital banking in France so far was not very difficult. I mean there was some players that never really find the right business model. But now we have Revolut with strong ambition, not only in France, but France they made as a Western Europe headquarters, but a bit everywhere in Europe and actually Ireland and U.K. So how do you see that as a threat? Or how that actually, more importantly, change your strategy on client acquisition for BoursoBank?

I think the first comment is when you have by all means a powerful competitor making your market focus of his or you have statements where they want to compete specifically in Europe for market, the first thing you need to do is to pay attention, right? And not to treat this lightly because you could go and say, well, Revolut, to the point I was making earlier, is not in the same business, right? We, again, right, offer broad products on the brokerage side, life insurance in Luxembourg wrappers, you can buy alternative investments, you can do virtually, again, anything in [indiscernible] hence, the current substance that you have there.

So we could go. We don't really care because these guys are making payments. That's absolutely not our attitude. Our attitude is there's a powerful player that has a slightly different strategy, go wide and shallow before going deep, while we basically did the opposite, go very deep instead of wide and shallow. But in the end, it is to be seen who will be the winner. So we pay attention, right? And when we pay attention, what do we see? We see that there's, for instance, from a customer acquisition perspective strategy, there's a difference, right? Much more marketing and certain features of the product offer that are more on the marketing side of things, while we are focused on basically paying a fee to the customer, but making sure, right, even in the structure of the fee, that substance in terms of deposits and product ownership comes fast, and we monitor this maturity of the client, this NBI per client very carefully, et cetera, et cetera.

We're probably both right. And so adjustments to the commercial policy will come as we compete, right? This is what's extremely healthy about a situation like this, right? But in the end, today, we are in the business of offering full-fledged banking services on an online basis, #1 in client satisfaction and #1 in terms of breadth of the product offer. And that remains and will remain a key feature of what we're doing already and where we want to go, right? We're in the business of online banking.

And could you get inspired by the revolution model to take the best of it in terms of expansion outside France? Or as you explained, it started being France and then...

So listen, I mean, the international expansion of BoursoBank or I think more accurately of the digital banking of SocGen outside of France is an obvious strategic topic on which we're constantly working. But in the spirit of it, everything that we're doing, we don't want to make decisions based on slogans or kind of marketing statements, right? The idea of doing this is very appealing and seems simple. The practicality of it because of the deep, deep differences between jurisdictions in Europe in terms of client behavior, in terms of product offer, in terms of even like the value proposition, how you're making money as an online -- not online, but as a retail bank, is so different from one market to the other. That if we were, say, to try and duplicate very deep jurisdiction per jurisdiction operations, well, that will require very substantial investments and the capacity to be relevant in all these jurisdictions that today, we don't have, right? And the idea that we'll just kind of take a bunch of extremely successful French bankers put them in Italy and all of a sudden be successful, that's not something I'm supportive of. But on the other hand, we do have very strong features in what we're doing, which we could expand. And we're thinking about this, but no announcement there.

Very clear. Moving now to the revenue side. I'm sure you're glad that we don't ask you about NII every quarter. But still it's a big part of your growth and especially in France. So how do you describe now the dynamics in terms of deposit migration? I mean we've seen now with always going in France, and I'm not asking you to comment on this, but there could be some uncertainty where we see a bit more of savings, less investments and then cost of deposits or on the asset side growth. So how can you describe the dynamics on NII in French Retail? So revenues in general, not NII.

But -- so revenues and starting with NII. So NII in our case, first of all, very strong growth year-on-year, quarter-on-quarter because of the end of the drag of the hedging, and if you compare H1 to H1, low single-digit growth on NII there. And the trend there is going to be marked by, one, clearly the stabilization of the shift from a non-remunerated to remunerated deposits. It's still going on a little bit, but nothing compared to the massive shifts that we had in '22 and '23 and a little bit in '24 still. So stabilization of this.

Support on the NII deposits because of the [ Liberia ] price coming down, and that's a tailwind, significant, it's not revolutionary, but significant. And then basically a stability with that support and repricing of the back book on the loan side because, as you know, we have very long-dated fixed rate instruments. And so as the back book reprices and now that we have reignited growth in terms of mortgages, this is going to be also supported. But again, because of the features of the French market, this is not something, and I was very clear about this, that is going to be explosive in terms of growth. But it is a number of longer-term trends that are supportive from this perspective.

Now from a volume perspective in the future, clearly, it's mostly in retail driven by the GDP growth and the macro dynamics of a particular country. The good news is that against a backdrop of a lot of, let's say, political uncertainty, a lot of political activity, you have a resilient growth. I'm not saying that 0.6% expected for this year is something stellar. But it is resilient, especially if you compare to, let's say, what the sentiment seemed to be last -- let's say, a year ago, right? And so from this perspective, good news and what we're forecasting is a low single-digit growth of the loan book.

Now the good news in our case is that we have a very strong fee origination in retail, which is based on our very strong market-leading dynamic in terms of asset gathering in life insurance on the one hand and also with our private banking in France in particular and across the entire network. So we're constructive, and we see this growing. And as you know, our fee component in the NBI of the retail is very substantial.

Very clear. I mean moving to Ayvens, which is a large part of your revenue generation. It was difficult start to the merger, to say the least. Now I mean, with the used car sales organization well advanced and the integration as well, how do you see the growth of the business? Maybe taking the 3 parts of revenues, used car sales, services and fleet growth and put that with the operational leverage, how do you see the profitability recovering in this business?

So the short answer is we see it recovering and converging to the objective that we set, which is, I remind you, 13% to 15% ROE by 2026 based on a 52% cost-to-income, which are both high performance levels in the market, especially the cost-to-income, which is obviously pre -- only excluding UCS impact, as you know, because sometimes we will communicate differently from this perspective. So that's important. And that kind of level you have something which is clearly accretive to the overall equation, provides some form of diversification because the cycles there are slightly different from the rest of the bank, and the growth prospects are strong for a number of reasons, both in terms of behaviors of the customers, fleet characteristics, et cetera.

Now what's very important is, as we took over with my team and in this case, in particular, with Pierre Palmieri overseeing this business, we made a few determinations like; one, that from a margin perspective, this business had been run without enough regard to the fixed rate component in the contracts, right? And in the growing inflationary environment, this has across the industry, right, compressed margins very significantly. And so we took a very important decision a little bit against the market trends at the time of saying, well, no, right? If you want to run this business in a healthy way, you have to work on restoring the margins and you have to understand what you're doing, right? Is that you're extending fixed-rate instruments with variable cost based on the service margin side, which I remind you is half of the -- basically of the NBI there, right?

So we were focused and still are on making sure that the business we underwrite is a good business from a margin perspective. The second feature is as things were moving a lot, as you know, on the EV side of things, which was seen, say, 5 years ago, has a massive growth underpinning the business because of the cost of one unit, obviously, there. So people were very keen on doing this. And here, once again, 2 years ago, right, and well ahead of many of our competitors, we said, well, I mean, this doesn't look as easy as simple as it used to, and we need to be very careful in risk managing this aspect of the business. So this is why you see significant improvements in margins and significant improvements in like core profitability, but muted growth.

So this is entirely by design and because of the decisions I just described. And so the future for this on top of the restructuring benefit is growth. But you see off a very healthy base, both in terms of cost-to-income and in terms of margin structures and in terms of fee structures, we do actually expect a substantial uplift there in profitability down the road.

We have 5 minutes left. I don't know if there's any questions in the audience? Then I will carry on. Maybe 5 minute to speak about your actually quite sizable division, GSIB -- GBIS, sorry.

So that's the division of the regulator.

And maybe more on the capital markets side. We've been enjoying quite nice environment in the last few quarters. And you always mentioned this word conducive and not to extrapolate that environment and being cautious. Do you believe the -- I mean, environment we are now in is probably the new normal or we should be careful not to extrapolate too much with what's been seen in last few?

Listen, so just to give you some perspective, when I took over CIB, so this was in 2020 and starting January 1, 2021. We had posted, I think, EUR 3.6 billion in NBI. And basically, there was a EUR 1 billion hole because of the COVID markets, as you may remember, right? So say the normalized steady state at the time was around EUR 4.5 billion. So today, the last guidance that we gave was above the top of the range, which is above EUR 5.5 billion. So keeping it simple, you have EUR 1 billion of revenue more than back then and extremely important, right, with a fraction of the risk that we were running at the time because the RWA on market side are down 30% and stress test usage is down 70%.

So not only we have EUR 1 billion more and which was there quite sustainably over the last few years. I'll come back to the conducive market conditions, but just to set the scene. So EUR 1 billion more at a fraction of the risk. And that's what we're working on, right, making sure that we operate this at maximum capacity, but at a very -- with a very low risk profile, which leads us to what, which leads us to what, which leads us to also leave some of the marginal opportunity to make money on the table for the sake of higher stability and better risk return over time. That's extremely important in the way we think.

Now more specifically on your question, the market conditions have been supportive, right? And it's quite remarkable, right? But we could go -- we don't have time, but we could go year-by-year since 2021. And every single year, there was something very specific that was driving volatility up, trends -- multiple trends during the year were present. Both are very conducive to the business, while never going into a dislocation, right? So these were like the perfect conditions, right? Obviously, then you have differences asset classes by asset classes, blah, blah, blah, but -- and we are, as you know, on the fixed side, for instance, geared more towards rates, not so much towards credit and blah, blah, blah.

So -- but without consideration to the business mix differences, these were somewhat perfect conditions, right? So do I think that it's the new normal? Well, I don't think that perfect conditions are the new normal, right? And we will see different things happening from a volatility perspective. And obviously, hopefully not. But you need to be mindful of potential dislocation. It's not like the world lacks reasons for profound instability. So going back to the heart of what we're trying to do is to operate this business with a very low risk profile and with that statement trying to capture the opportunities with the low risk profile, and we'll try to do our best this year, probably above the top of the range.

Very clear. Thank you very much, Slawomir.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Société Générale Second Quarter and Half Year 2025 Conference Call. I now hand over to Mr. Slawomir Krupa, Chief Executive Officer. Sir, please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for our H1 results. I am delighted to present to you another strong set of results as well as an important new milestone in the execution of our strategic plan.

Last quarter, we demonstrated that our continued improvement is sustainable, and we continue to perform ahead of our end of year targets. Through a consistent organic capital generation, we have further strengthened our capital ratio. Our overall performance gives us the confidence to take two major steps forward in our commitments. We are upgrading our annual targets, and we now expect a ROTE around 9% for 2025. And we are further improving shareholder return with today's announcement of our first ever exceptional distribution of a portion of our excess capital through an additional share buyback of EUR 1 billion. This is an important first step.

Additionally, we are introducing an interim dividend of EUR 0.61 per share against the results of the first half of 2025. The unwavering dedication of our teams makes all this possible. We continue to execute our strategic road map with discipline and determination. And as a result, we are moving into the second phase of our 3-year plan with equal confidence based on this year's first half results.

Revenues increased by 8.6%, sorry, versus H1 '24, excluding asset disposals, at a growth pace well above our initial target for 2025. Costs continued to decrease at a higher pace than initially planned. They are down 2.6% since the beginning of the year compared with last year, excluding asset disposals. This positive differential translates into a current group cost-to-income ratio of 64%, already below our initial annual target and roughly 7 percentage points better than last year. Asset quality remains strong. The cost of risk remains low and below our annual guidance at 24 basis points for the first half. At this point, we see no signs of significant deterioration. And regardless, our assessment of the current environment keeps us prudent in terms of risk management.

Together, all these factors contribute to a group ROTE of more than 10% at the end of the first half, with the group net income reaching EUR 3.1 billion. This is well above our initial annual target. Ultimately, our capital ratio further increased by 10 basis points in Q2 '25 and the CET1 ratio now stands at 13.5% after accounting for the additional share buyback of EUR 1 billion. Therefore, we have decided to upgrade our annual targets on cost to income and ROTE based on strong positive jaws.

Looking forward, we now expect a cost-to-income ratio below 65% in 2025 versus below 66% before. And as the cost of risk guidance remains unchanged, we now expect an annual ROTE around 9% in 2025.

We're basing this decision to upgrade our targets in what we see in the numbers at the business level. We implemented our strategy through specific business initiatives, as you know, and which are delivering positive outcomes throughout the group. In French Retail, Private Banking and insurance, we are now pursuing a stronger strategic direction and renewed management practices, which leads to an increased commercial momentum and the opportunity to extract more synergies across the French Retail businesses. This is boosting growth in mortgage origination in fees, in private banking AUM and in life insurance outstandings.

At the same time, BoursoBank has already reached 8 million clients, 18 months ahead of our initial CMD targets. It keeps delivering an improved financial performance, which will accelerate next year. Our focus for the remainder of the year will be to maintain our current steady pace in terms of client acquisition. Overall, the RPBI RONE rose to 10.4% in H1 '25 versus 3.3% in '24. And the cost-to-income ratio decreased to 67% versus 81% over the same period.

In Global Banking and Investor Solutions, we continue to deliver a high consistent, stable and predictable performance for the fifth year in a row within all our businesses, particularly within Global Markets. We have leading franchises in our Global Banking business that are well positioned across megatrends like infrastructure investments, energy transition and defense. And overall, we continue to deliver leading profitability levels with a RONE of 17.7% in H1 '25 post Basel IV.

In Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services, profitability is up by more than 2 percentage points versus last year. Margin and synergies at events are also increasing. KB and BRD are performing very well and leverage a successful digital overhaul. At the same time, we continue to streamline our business portfolio with the closing of the disposal of our subsidiary in Burkina Faso, and the announcement of the disposal of our subsidiary in Cameroon.

Our CMD commitments were simple: deliver value creation, anchored in a strong capital position. We also committed to being good stewards of the capital of our shareholders by being more efficient in terms of capital allocation across our businesses, by streamlining our portfolio through targeted disposals and by improving, of course, our operating performance. The tight execution of this road map gives us today the ability to substantially enhance shareholder returns.

In this first half, we brought our CET1 ratio to 13.8% at the end of June 2025 before excess capital distribution. And we are therefore announcing the first additional share buyback of EUR 1 billion, which represents minus 25 basis points of CET1. And given that we have already received the ECB approval, it will be launched as soon as next Monday.

As previously stated, we will continue to proactively manage our sustainable excess capital in the best interest of shareholders with a mix of exceptional distribution and profitable, disciplined growth. We are also introducing an interim dividend from 2025 onwards, and we intend to distribute an interim cash dividend of EUR 0.61 per share this year representing 35% of the H1 '25 total distribution accrual. It will be paid on October 9 of this year.

I now leave the floor to Leo, who is going to take you through our second quarter performance.

Thank you, Slawomir, and good morning, everyone.

Let us move on to the financial performance in Q2 '25. It is another strong quarter for the group, which reports a group net income of EUR 1.5 billion, up 30.6% versus Q2 '24. This translates into a higher return on tangible equity of 9.7% versus the 7.4% that we had in Q2 2024. Going through Q2 '25 details, we can see a solid revenue growth of 7.1% versus Q2 '24, excluding disposals, driven by strong commercial performance across businesses, as we will see later. Reduced cost by minus 2.8% versus Q2 '24, excluding the global employee ownership program, GESOP, and other disposals, showing our continued firm discipline on costs.

Both movements translate into a further improvement in operational leverage with a cost-to-income ratio of 63.8% in Q2 '25 down by more than 4 percentage points versus Q2 '24, achieved despite a one-off noncash charge of EUR 100 million related to the launch of the Global Employee Share Ownership program in June 2025. Asset quality wise, the cost of risk continues to be low at 25 basis points at the lower end of our guidance between 25 and 30. In addition, as mentioned by Slawomir, we continued to simplify our business portfolio with the closing of the disposal of SocGen Burkina Faso and the announced sale of SocGen Cameroon.

Moving on with the presentation on Slide 9, we present the main drivers of our revenue growth in Q2 '25. Disposed assets generated EUR 342 million of revenues in Q2 last year, mainly Morocco, Madagascar, SGEF and private banking in Switzerland and the U.K. Therefore, group revenues increased 1.6% versus Q2 '24 on a reported basis, but 7.1% when adjusting for 2024 asset disposals.

Revenues in French Retail, Private Banking and insurance increased by 10.7%, excluding disposals and by 2.8% if we also restate the drag from shortened hedges in Q2. Revenues of Global Banking and Investor Solutions are up 0.7% versus a strong Q2 '24 to reach a high level of EUR 2.6 billion, driven by solid performance in fixed income as well as in Financing and Advisory. Lastly, revenues in Mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services grew by 7.3% versus Q2 '24, excluding disposals, supported by the sustained growth of Ayvens as we will see later.

Continuing on the next slide, we can observe the ongoing improvement in our operating leverage. Total costs fell by 5.2% between Q2 '24 and Q2 '25, confirming our discipline on cost management. This is equivalent to a minus 2.8% reduction excluding both disposals and the charges related to GESOP launched in June '25 for an amount of EUR 100 million. This charge of GESOP is EUR 100 million is a noncash item, which, therefore, has no impact in CET1 nor on distributable net income as the P&L charge is offset by an equivalent positive impact in the equity.

The decrease in cost is supported by EUR 93 million of lower transformation charges as expected and net cost savings across the board, representing EUR 30 million. As a result, the operating leverage improved in all businesses driven by both higher revenues and decreasing costs, as shown on the right-hand side of the slide. The improvement is particularly relevant at [ RPBI ], with a decrease of 12 percentage points from 77% last year to 65% in Q2 '25. The group cost-to-income ratio falls 4 percentage points from 68% last year to the current 64% in Q2 '25. Overall, we are very confident we will reach our new target of a cost-to-income ratio below 65% in 2025.

Let us take a closer look at the asset quality on Slide 11. The cost of risk in Q2 '25 remains low at 25 basis points, which is at the lower end of our guidance, only 2 basis points higher than last quarter and minus 1 basis point below Q2 '24. This quarter's cost of risk mainly comprises of Stage 3 provisions, which account for EUR 390 million. In parallel, as you can see, total outstanding Stage 1 and Stage 2 provisions remain high at EUR 3 billion, slightly down from Q1 '25, mainly due to asset disposals and assets. Stage 2 provisions, in particular, represent 4.3% of the corresponding Stage 2 stock of loans.

Asset quality is solid, with an NPL ratio of 2.77%, down 5 basis points from the previous quarter. And also, the net coverage ratio remained sound at 81% in Q2 down 1 percentage point from Q1, basically because of asset disposals.

Let's now turn on to capital on Slide 12, where we can see our strong capital position evolution. This is the basis for the first distribution of excess capital, as mentioned earlier by Slawomir. The CET1 ratio reached 13.5% in Q2 '25. This is 330 basis points above MDA. This strong ratio is already net of the additional share buyback of EUR 1 billion, which corresponds to an impact of 25 basis points. All in all, we see the quarter a net increase of 35 basis points before the additional share buyback or a net increase of 10 basis points after it as explained from left to right in the slide.

On one hand, retained earnings contributed with 50 basis points -- 15 basis points after accruing a 50% payout. We have a positive impact from asset disposals, not only related to the sale of Burkina Faso, some positive regulatory adjustments with an impact of 8 basis points and finally, other impacts, which added 2 basis points. In addition, as you can see in the bottom right-hand side of the slide, all other capital ratios are comfortably above the regulatory requirements.

We have the liquidity profile of the group on Slide 13. Societe Generale maintained a strong liquidity profile with an LCR ratio at 148% at the end of Q2 and an NSFR ratio at 117%, both well above regulatory requirements. Liquidity reserves stands at EUR 313 billion in Q2 with a balanced mix between cash and securities. We've already executed around 80% of the long-term funding program with good access to liquidity in all currencies on the back of a strong long-term ratings from our agencies, including as a novelty for the quarter, the new stable outlook from Moody's.

The deposit base remains strong, granular and highly diversified. Overall, loan to depo stands at 77% for the group.

In Slide 14, we show a summary of the P&L of the group for Q2, which we will cover in more detail in the coming slides. Let's move now to the business performance on Slide 16, starting with SocGen network, Private Banking and Insurance. In Q2 '25, loans outstanding decreased by 2% compared to last year, are flat when excluding state guaranteed loans, while slightly up versus Q1 '25. Home loan production continues to increase strongly in the quarter, thanks to a strong commercial momentum and it is up by 175% versus Q2 '24. As expected, volumes of deposits are stabilizing as well as the mix between sites and term. They are slightly down 1% versus Q1 '25.

Linked to this deposit evolution, we consider the strong momentum in asset gathering continues this quarter. On the one hand, we see AUM of private banking reaching EUR 132 billion in Q2, increasing by 6% versus Q2 '24. If we adjust for asset disposals, while outstandings are up by more than EUR 2 billion when compared to Q1. On the other side, life insurance outstanding increased by 5% versus Q2 '24, reaching a total of EUR 150 billion. That also represents plus EUR 2 billion versus Q1, thanks to continued strong inflows.

Moving now to BoursoBank. Once again, in Q2, the bank maintained a high pace of acquisition, gathering 424,000 new clients. More importantly, it already reached the 8 million target in July, this is 6 quarters ahead of its December '26 objective. This growth is achieved together with the churn rate that remains below 4%. In terms of client service, BoursoBank was recently recognized as the best digital bank in France by Euromoney. At the same time, assets under administration improved further, reaching EUR 70 billion. This shows that BoursoBank as a gathering remains very strong, notably with deposits growing by 16% versus Q2 '24.

Similarly, life insurance outstanding increased by 7% versus Q2 '24 with higher rates of unit-linked products, representing 48% of the total. Note also that BoursoBank posted strong growth in market orders, plus 33% versus Q4 '24. While finally, on the lending side, total loans outstanding grew by 10% versus Q2 '24.

Reviewing now the 4 pillar level for French Retail, Private Banking and Insurance on Slide 18. I would like to highlight once again the very positive evolution of the cost to income ratio, which falls more than 12 percentage points to 65.1% in the quarter. This is driven by the strong 10.7% increase in revenues, excluding disposals and the strict cost discipline as demonstrated by the decrease in cost by minus 5.7% compared to Q2 '24, again, excluding disposals.

Further down in the P&L, you see that the cost of risk came at 25 basis points, lower than the 29 that we had in Q2 '24. Collectively, this results in a net income of EUR 488 million in Q2 '25, equivalent to a RONE of 11.2% for the quarter and the Basel IV requirements, which compares to 5.7% last year under the previous Basel III.

Turning now to Global Markets and Investor Services on Slide 19. Q2 total revenues for GMIS, are stable versus Q2 '24, which was particularly strong in our market businesses. Focusing on global markets, Q2 '25 revenues increased slightly by 0.8% versus Q2 '24, combining normalization in equity revenues and a robust performance in FIC. On the equity revenue side, these were resilient in Q2 '25, down by 2.9% versus Q2 '24. Commercial activity remained sound in equity derivatives. It is very important to highlight the base effect in the comparative with Q2 '24, where equities benefited from very high volumes across all activities. Indeed, Q2 '24 was our best second quarter since 2010 in this segment.

FIC delivered a solid quarter with revenues increasing by 7.3% versus Q2 '24, thanks to the robust performance in activities like flow and finance. We also benefited from strong commercial activity in a challenging economic environment where visibility and global macro prospects are uncertain. With that, FIC managed to mitigate the slowdown in derivatives.

Lastly, in Securities Services, revenues eased by 3.1% versus Q2 '24, where the decrease in interest rates has impacted the steady commercial momentum in the quarter by SGSS.

Let's move on to Slide 20. Financing & Advisory, total revenues are up by 1.3% versus Q2 '24. Global Banking & Advisory continued to improve, with revenues increasing by almost 4%. This good performance is largely driven by acquisition finance, fund financing and infrastructure finance as well as a continued upward momentum in both originated and distributed volumes. In investment banking, DCM delivered a good performance in Q2 '25, while ECM is showing encouraging signs of recovery in a market environment that is still challenging.

Regarding transaction banking, revenues declined by 4.7% in Q2. Performance was impacted by the decrease in interest rates, offsetting the solid commercial activity with both corporate and institutional clients. Looking at the whole GBIS pillar on Slide 21. We can see that overall, GBIS maintained a solid performance with revenues reaching EUR 2.6 billion in Q2 '25, slightly up versus as mentioned, a very high Q2 '24.

We keep up with strong cost discipline, with expenses down minus 1% in the quarter. The cost to income ratio decreased 1.1 percentage points from 62.7% in Q2 last year to the current 61.6%. Cost of risk remained contained at 19 basis points in the quarter. As a result of all the previous GBIS delivered net income contribution of EUR 750 million in Q2 '25, equivalent to a high RONE up 16.8% under Basel IV.

Let's now move to International Retail. Overall, revenues continued to increase this quarter, up by 2.7% compared to Q2 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter. This is driven once again by the European businesses. In Europe, loans are up 7% while deposits remained stable versus Q2 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter. Revenues on the other hand, increased by 6% versus Q2 '24. Again, at constant exchange rate in perimeter, supported by higher net income both in KB and BRD.

In Africa, loans decreased by 3% versus Q2 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter. Given economic and political situations in certain countries, we observe a wait-and-see attribute in the corporate sector. On the other hand, deposits within the same perimeter grew 2% year-on-year. Revenues remained resilient, though, versus a high Q2 '24, with an increase in net interest income of 2% versus Q2 '24 at constant exchange rate and perimeter.

Focusing now on Mobility and Financial Services, the combined businesses posted a strong increase in revenues of 11.1% versus Q2 last year. At constant exchange rates and perimeter this is excluding, for example, the disposed gas. Ayvens revenues improved strongly by 10.6%. Margins increased to 550 basis points from 539 in Q2 last year. UCS revenues were supported by lower depreciation and the UCS cost per unit are normalizing but at still a slower pace than anticipated. They represented around EUR 1,250 per vehicle versus the EUR 1,480 per vehicle in Q2 '24.

Earning assets remained roughly stable at around EUR 53 billion on the back of proactive fleet management to favor profitability in core countries. On an underlying basis, excluding not to be the falling depreciation charges and Turkey hyperinflation adjustments, revenues fell by 3% versus Q2 '24. Consumer Finance performed very well this quarter, with revenues up by 12.6% versus Q2 '24, benefiting from margin expansion and higher NII, mainly in France as well as a minor positive impact from asset revaluation.

We see positive growth jaws driven by higher revenues by 7.2% and decreasing costs, down 4.2% versus Q2 '24, both at constant perimeter and exchange rate, despite an inflationary context. This once again demonstrates the strict cost discipline across the businesses. The cost of risk stands at 35 basis points, falling from the 45 basis points in Q2 '24. So overall, the whole pillar of mobility, International Retail Banking and Financial Services posted a net income of EUR 404 million up by 41% versus Q2 '24, adjusting for the perimeter and exchange rates.

Finally, the RONE improved 4 percentage points to 15.3% under Basel IV.

To conclude now on the financial performance, let's move to Slide 25 to the corporate center. NBI improved versus Q2 '24, notably thanks to a proactive efficient management of excess liquidity. Operating expenses include EUR 100 million related to the Group Employee Share Ownership Program, which, as explained before, is a noncash item and, therefore, does not affect CET1 nor shareholder distribution. In addition, Q2 '25 included notably the disposal of Burkina Faso, both in net profit or losses from other assets.

Let's now give back the floor to Slawomir.

Thank you, Leo. Our economies and industries are facing multiple challenges in terms of technology, environment and social change. And navigating these complex dynamics requires, in our view, perspective and anticipation. So we announced this quarter the final composition of our Scientific Advisory Council. It consists of 8 members, world-leading scientists and experts with complementary skills. No group is better equipped in our view to help us responsibly, take advantage of the secular trends that will influence the entire world economy for decades to come.

At the same time, we continue to craft innovative solutions. For instance, we recently participated in the United Nations Ocean Conference, and we acted as the exclusive adviser for the Maritime Upgrade debt fund. Through our REED subsidiary, Société Générale completed its ninth equity investment within the EUR 1 billion envelope, which we dedicate to support leading emerging players in the energy transition. An upgraded rating at the last Sustainalytics review puts us among the top banks worldwide, and we also received the world's best bank for ESG Award from Euromoney.

As usual, let's finish simply by looking at the facts. Our track record shows that we consistently turn our commitments into actions and our actions into tangible results. We are on track to deliver on the upgraded targets for 2025 and to deliver our plan in 2026. Now next year and for years to come, we will stay relentlessly committed to bringing costs down and increasing efficiency. This is crucial for us and will remain crucial for us in order to consistently deliver a sustainable value creation for all our stakeholders.

Thank you very much, and let's now start the Q&A with our usual polite request to stick to 2 questions per person. The floor is yours.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Tarik El Mejjad of Bank of America.

Sorry for my voice. Well done for those strong sets of results for the whole team. So first question on capital, please. You had a strong capital build in Q2 with a strong bps, 30 bps pre the buyback. We should be ending the year on 13.6%, if we add Cameroon proceeds 6 bps and we add the share issuance for employees of 5 bps, you are way away above your NIM requirement. First of all, can you confirm what's the moving parts in the second half of this year in terms of capital? If I'm missing something there beyond Cameroon, share issuance and organic generation.

And also, you mentioned a few times that you don't want to build much capital excess above 13%. Is it realistic to expect more share buyback in the second half of this year? If you start your's in August next week, given the liquidity, you can probably finish it in the next 3 months. By the way, if you can -- do you have a deadline on when you want to complete it. And you mentioned a few times in the slides in the call that this is your first exceptional. So would you be planning to do one? Is this realistic? Have you asked the ECB for another one? That's my first question.

Second one is on the targets. '25's new targets upgrade is welcomed and I think remains on a cautious side. But my question is more than '26 where now it's very close to '25 targets, given that we expect some acceleration from many fronts, growth in France, cost synergies and so on. So what makes you think that 10% is the max you can deliver in '26? And when is actually your next CMD, is it something early next year?

Thank you, Tarik. It feels like 10 questions, but I'll try and answer. So on capital, I mean, let's keep it simple. We do have a high capital ratio. We did say very clearly that we do not intend to accumulate capital above our target. And we can only acknowledge that we are creating organic capital further. And so we most likely be regularly for the foreseeable future in a position to have to make decisions on how to use excess capital. We have said in the past that we will use this by being very, let's say, rigorous in analyzing the opportunities between additional return to shareholders, in particular in the form of buybacks, which still has a high ROI, although decreasing, which is a good news, obviously, and organic growth opportunities, which are substantial in our businesses and which carry, as you know, as well, usually very high marginal rates of return on employed capital and then theoretically, at least inorganic opportunities.

So we will continue to do this. And I can only acknowledge that we're in a position, which will lead us to have to make these decisions regularly. We don't comment on what we filed with the ECB or when we filed with the ECB. Just look at our track record and what I just said.

In terms of your second question, the 2026 guidance is not changed at this point because we don't change intra-year longer-term targets. We will, as always, comment very precisely on them at Q4 '25 and giving our indications for the 2026 performance. Again, it is true that if you look at the underlying performance, so if you adjust for the exceptional positive items that we had in H1, we are running slightly above 9% in terms of group ROTE. So once again, I can only acknowledge the fact, but the guidance at this point is unchanged. But rest assured that we will do our best in a given environment to deliver the best possible results.

And in terms of CMD, well, same thing, I don't have anything in particular to announce, but we are committed to transparency. We are committed to open, precise, fact-based dialogue with our shareholders. And so it is fair to expect that we will clearly discuss the forward-looking plan at some point next year, but no decision was made as to when, how and that's it. Thank you.

The next question is from Flora Bocahut of Barclays.

I wanted to ask you a question on French Retail Banking revenues specifically. Simply asking why you're not providing us with the guidance on the revenue outlook there for this year? We have a scope that is clean now in this division post Q2. We are past the half year mark. We have visibility on delivery rate, what's going to happen actually tomorrow. So why don't you want to provide us with the guidance on French Retail revenues? And maybe can I ask in that direction, should we expect a pickup both in NII and fees from here? So compared to the Q2 base in French Retail. That is then further emphasized by the Boursorama strategic change on the customer acquisition in 2026.

Thank you. On the first question, I mean the -- we have not been providing this guidance to my recollection at least, I'm certain, not under my management. I think at some point, I mean, I'll be very honest with you and very direct. At some point, these things can only be estimated and then they carry inordinate amount of let's say, emotions. And I think it's more important to discuss the substance, right? So the substance and it's a little bit your second question, but the substance is we have indeed a clean slate now and we have dynamics in the French market, which are basically volumes, both in terms of deposits and loans in absolute terms, should be 0 plus in the current environment, although we had a technical beat on French GDP yesterday, but we remain confident that it's a resilient economy with a strong corporate structure across the entire country, et cetera.

But we clearly do not expect at this point anything explosive. So on volumes, something which would be 0 plus. In terms of margins, we see a slight improvement, especially driven by the stabilization, which we discussed in the past many times in terms of the deposit mix. So lower cost of deposits because of the lowering regulatory savings rate and coupled with the stabilization, especially in terms of the site deposits. And so this will be a feature, which you understand is going to be slightly supportive, right? So we're constructive on NII based on what I just said.

And also remember, we have a progressive repricing of the back book, which in the French Retail market is obviously heavily weighted towards mortgages and long-dated fixed rate mortgages. And that back book is slowly, slowly repriced up. And so that's also something which is slightly supportive. So overall, you see we're fairly constructive and that's what I can say on NII.

On fees, as you've seen, we're up quarter-on-quarter and the first half to the first half of last year. And for technical reasons, flat versus Q1 '25. It has to do with campaigns, dynamics, marketing campaigns and specific products, et cetera, but here again, without expecting something that would be in the very high single digits in terms of growth, we are constructive as well as we support a better increased momentum, more focus on origination in the retail network. And as you've seen, pretty strong dynamics across Boursorama, BoursoBank, private banking and, of course, the life insurance products where we have leading market performance.

So that's the color I can give you on the revenue outlook. In terms of '26 and going forward, basically, it's all the same ingredients that, everything else being equal, so in that environment in terms of GDP, you will see that steady increase. Again, everything else being equal, based on the exact same ingredients that I just described.

The next question is from Matthew Clark of Mediobanca.

A couple of questions on the CIB, please. Firstly, could you just talk about sequential GTPS revenue second quarter versus first quarter? When I try to impute what they've done, it looks like they came down quite a lot. So just to understand what the drivers are then -- are there if that's the correct interpretation? And whether you see the first quarter or second quarter as more of a run rate for GTPS after the tremendous growth for the last few years?

And then second question is on the Bernstein joint venture in the U.S. I just thought it should have been a very strong quarter for that business. But looking at the associates line within GBIS, it has actually got slightly worse. So just to understand, is that joint venture going to plan? And why aren't we seeing any impact from that in the associates line of GBIS yet?

So on GTPS, it's very simple. It's volume slightly up, rates significantly down, and this is one of these businesses that we have in the mix, which is directly curated to rates, which had significant tailwinds in the last few years. And this quarter, again, was experiencing these headwinds from a rate perspective. So it's indeed down a few percentage points versus Q2 '24, you're right in that assumption. And again, it's a matter only of price effect in terms of commercial dynamic and volume growth and client acquisition, we're still growing substantially in this business. And we have invested a lot of money over the last 5 years, and we continue to invest in this business.

In terms of Bernstein, you have one particular technical fact, which is Bernstein America, so our U.S. business, U.S. JV is not consolidated. So you don't see it in the revenue numbers. So the quarter was logically good at that unit, but we're not reporting it in the NBI line because of the structure of the JV at this point. It might change in the future gradually to something more standard. But today, this is why you don't see this. It's purely technical, but indeed, from an overall perspective, in terms of revenues, integration, team dynamics. We are very happy with how it works. And obviously, we would have liked to have more volumes on the primary markets in the world, but this has for all kinds of reasons, which you know perfectly well, was subdued, but it will be another supporting factor in the future.

Can I just follow up? I guess, why don't we see it in the associates line, so below the operating profit line, presumably, that's where the net profit or your share of the net profit gets booked? So I'm just curious why we're not seeing a modest tens of millions impact there from that business? And then secondly, just coming back to GTPS, have you now digested the recent rate moves within that second quarter revenue number? Or do you maturity intermediate there, in which case we've still got kind of a lag to drag to come through as a kind of replicating portfolio rolls over?

I mean the -- so on Bernstein, again, the current structure of the JV is such that the ultimate bottom line in a business which, as you know, has a high cost income ratio anyway, is more limited than what it will be down the road. So the share of the bottom line that we get from the U.S. business is lower than what it will be in the future at this point. So this is just the technical way that JV was set up at its inception.

In terms of GTPS, most of the rate action happened. And then it's just a matter which, frankly, I don't have in my head of the average duration of some of the products, et cetera, et cetera. But philosophically, this is cash management and transaction banking. So most of the adjustment happens on a very short-term basis. So the answer to your question is most of it is behind us. And again, just to give you a sense in terms of the volumes we're talking about double-digit -- high double-digit increases in terms of the volumes at this business level.

The next question is from Delphine Lee of JPMorgan.

My first one is on the cost management in general. You've done really well so far, minus almost 2.5% in the first half. I was just wondering for '26 is the objective to have -- is it specific to this year? Or can we expect also a reduction after in '26 as well -- and in '26? And then the second question is on capital. I mean you're at 13.5% at the end of June. And clearly, you're going to have a bit more capital generation in the second half. I mean, you talk about 13%, but there's clearly still a bit of buffer. I was just wondering if the intention to have -- to get closer at some point to the 13% and step up the buyback? Or is it to have a little bit of room above the 13%?

Thank you. On cost management, overall, well, let me say this way, right, keeping with my promise not to change the guidance for 2026, but I will give you color referring you to some of the comments I made in my presentation in which I make very, very often, which is efficiency and cost structure of the bank is the #1 focus of the management team because this is the heart of our specific idiosyncratic challenge. We are very good, and I explained this very clearly at the CMD as well. We are structured historically through the cycle, very good at generating gross margin defined as NBI on RWA across virtually all our businesses if you look through the cycle. But yes, with the cost structure, which was inefficient and which is getting better, but there's room to go further down, it must be an intense focus for the management. It has been, you're seeing it, and it will remain so.

So based on this comment, you can expect us to continue to try to do our best to decrease structurally and continue to decrease for the years to come, structurally the inefficiencies throughout the company. Let me leave it at that. And it's a very, very serious strong commitment of ours.

In terms of the capital, thanks for the very precise question. Listen, while as we said, we will not run the show at 13.01%. That's for sure. It's a matter of just being serious about an important topic for any bank. But on the other hand, we will converge in terms of using the excess capital to something which is close to 13%, right? I mean, there's no buffer on top of the buffer. At 13%, we have enough buffer to handle our destiny well in terms of whatever headwinds we may face. So the answer clearly is over time, I'm not saying it's going to happen in Q3, but over time, strategically, the direction is to converge to something very close to 13.1%, not being 1 basis points above.

So hopefully, that gives you some clarity. But again, it's a mix like dealing with the excess capital is a mix of intentions between shareholder return and investment in the business, which we will carry out very transparently, very openly and with a very high regard to high marginal returns, if invested in organic growth.

Next question is from Giulia Miotto of Morgan Stanley.

So first one on BoursoBank. The target is for EUR 300 million net income next year, but given that you are so much ahead of target in terms of customer acquisition, how is the profitability of that business at the moment? Could you share some numbers on that? And then secondly, I noticed quite a big drop in loans in GBIS in Slide 39. And I was wondering what is driving that?

Thank you. So on BoursoBank first, and then I'll let Leo answer the second question, which, as you will see, is a fairly technical matter. On BoursoBank, so yes, we are ahead. And so the average number of clients in 2026 and their average tenure with the bank will be higher than initially expected. The one thing that is lower than initially expected, obviously, it's the other rates. And remember, in the way BoursoBank generates its income, it is heavily, heavily weighted towards NII. And so this is why at this point, even if we were upgrading or discussing targets for 2026, which we are not, but even if we were, we would have to take this into account. And at this point, frankly, we would not, in this hypothetical discussion that we're not having, we would not upgrade that number because of what I just described.

And in terms of P&L drivers at BoursoBank, without going into the details because we're not disclosing them, but you should think about this, its NII stemming a lot from deposits, from the deposit base and a certain amount of fees across a very vast product offer, but also with the USP, which is based on a fairly competitive rates on all the basic products, right? So it is highly rate dependent. And then on the negative side, which is actually booked as negative NBI, you have the acquisition costs which are all accounted for entirely the minute that they happen.

So at this point in time, nothing is capitalized there. So you have the entirety of the cost of acquisition being deducted from the NBI when the acquisition of the new client happens. So that's the color. Leo, on the loans?

Sure. Thank you for the question. So basically, the loans go down by EUR 15 billion this quarter versus Q1 '25 and it's basically driven by two impacts. One of them is technical and explains EUR 9 billion of the EUR 15 billion, and this is basically an overnight loan to [ back ] the funds, which was booked as the loan until Q1 '25, and now it's accounted as cash. And the second one, which accounts for almost EUR 5 billion, EUR 4.8 billion, it's driven by the ForEx effect in the quarter.

Very clear. Just a follow-up, if I can, Slawomir, you talked about the dependence on level of rates, et cetera. I keep thinking that some good NII disclosure with the sensitivities, hedges, AUM, et cetera, would be helpful. Just something to keep in mind for the future.

Thank you.

The next question is from Joseph Dickerson of Jefferies.

Could you just give us an update on the RWA trajectory because I think you've talked about '24 to '26 growth of 1%? We're currently flat at the moment. I guess how do we think about deploying those organically in priority -- order of priority? Is it Ayvens, BoursoBank and then the IB? And just a follow-up on BoursoBank, more specifically on the point that you've reached 8 million clients. Last year, you ran about EUR 245 million of customer acquisition costs, as you pointed out, as a contra revenue. I guess, do you start to dial that back next year and the second half of this year? I guess what's the optimal level now of clients? Do you intend to grow it meaningfully beyond 8 million or do you intend to grow inorganically, like you did in the past with ING? I guess a little bit of color on BoursoBank there because it's clearly inflecting in a big potential lever next year irrespective of rates.

Absolutely. Thank you. On the first question, I think I want to say a few things. First, we do have room in terms of organic capital allocation to business growth within that CMD guidance like you just implied. So I'm just confirming that. And that's the spirit with which we operate. But remember, in a management framework, which we have quite drastically changed and in which we have a very, very big focus on optimizing capital allocation, and I'm trying to do our best with every penny that we invest organically.

So you see here both the opportunity because there is room to deploy this capital across the businesses. I'll go into the second part of your question in a second. But on the other hand, I will not change the management stance on the quality and rigor with which the capital is allocated. So again, while there is capital available and will be made available -- is made available to businesses organic growth, the standards of deploying it are unchanged. So don't expect everything else being equal, anything explosive, once again, from a growth perspective there, but do expect us to increase seriously, rigorously the allocation to the businesses.

Which ones? I think if I give you today the list, I would tell you first, the IB and F&A business, but once again with a big focus on the asset rotation and on being aware of the fact that the macro context, while resilient, right, clearly resilient with some uncertainties kind of abating recently, but remains potentially challenging. So with the pretty strong focus on risk management as well. So growth opportunity, but again, rigorously executed.

And then I would tell you Ayvens, but even within here, again, a very clear mandate, which is not one of the destroying value through a growth, which is unhealthy. If you look at our performance and contrast it with the market, you will see that we have a very specific focus on making sure that our GOI generation there remains healthy and that we focus, right, on the balance between margin dynamics, risks taken and growth opportunities. It's very easy, as you know, in our businesses to generate unhealthy growth, and this is not what we're going to do. And then it's a little bit across all the businesses. I mean, KB, BRD do well and have room to grow in markets which are sound and exhibit healthy growth. On the retail side, I mean the need for RWA today because of the backdrop that I gave you on the Retail in France side. Because of the macro backdrop, I mean, the need there is not very significant. So that's for the RWAs.

And in terms of the BoursoBank dynamics. So first, we will not slow down the pace in 2025 in terms of acquisition. It's a market which is a highly competitive market. It's a market which is, if anything, competition is increasing in this market and maintaining our leadership, leading the market in terms of acquisition and almost more importantly, in terms of client feedback and client quality, we're still #1 in that regard in France with BoursoBank in terms of client satisfaction.

And so we will continue to make these investments. And I do believe that going forward, what we need to do is to find the right path for continued growth with more balance between the cost of acquisition, which are already decreasing and have been decreasing for a while, a focus on generating higher NBI per client at the same time as the clients mature, if you will, in the client base. But maintaining some of the competitive edge we have, and that's basically the equation that we will have to solve for and which we will in the next few months.

And organic -- listen -- in organic since, you brought up, I mean, I don't see right now any inorganic opportunities that would make sense at this point. But obviously, if they were to come we would look at them. But again, with a lot of rigor and conservatism.

The next question comes from Sharath Kumar of Deutsche Bank.

Sorry, I was mute. Firstly, a follow-up to the very last comment that you made on inorganic opportunities. Given that you're tracking well above 13% CET1, one of Ayvens shareholders is in the midst of selling their stake. Is their appetite opportunistically increase the stake here given you view this business to be strategic? The second one, not a question but more a request on BoursoBank. I think it will be useful to have better disclosures to see the contribution from BoursoBank separately. Is this something that you're willing to consider?

I mean starting -- thank you very much for your question. So starting with the second one. I mean, we're willing to consider anything that investors or the market community yourself are putting on the table. Now for now, we're not planning on disclosing anything further now. But as we go into 2026, we have a very clear commitment in terms of bottom line contribution. And so we definitely will be giving you more color at least at that horizon. And what I can tell you today is that for H1, after 2024 where BoursoBank was profitable, H1 '25 BoursoBank is profitable, profitability being defined as above 0 in terms of net to income. And when I say above 0, it's a number which is not material at the group level, but it's obviously quite a bit higher than 0, which evidences and that's, I think, the important point that while at the CMD, we made a very clear statement in terms of strategic vision for this business, which is clearly growth, right?

For 100 clients that we acquire in the French market at BoursoBank, 10 of them roughly come from SocGen and 90 of them come from our competitors. So I like these maths very much. And so from this perspective, this was the statement. And we had said that we would invest EUR 150 million of negative GOI. This was the metric that we had discussed at the time at the CMD. But of course, like with everything else, we try to do better, right? We try to do better. And as we saw a path to optimize both the acquisition costs and revenue generation, at BoursoBank, we were able, actually, throughout the plan, and this is going to remain the case for the remainder of the year, to actually not spend that GOI.

And we're actually -- we actually made money throughout the cycle. So saving substantially more over the period, saving substantially more than EUR 150 million. So that's right? I mean that's all I can say at this point.

On the inorganic opportunities, it's important to again look at this as you have capital that needs to have a return that is healthy and that you can justify versus the other opportunities that you have. Today, we have on the return to shareholders in the form of buyback a certain level of ROI, which is high. In terms of organic growth, we have marginal returns, which are very high, again, because of virtually unlimited, virtually, right, unlimited operating leverage and the opportunity of reinvesting in portion of the minority stakes in Ayvens is one which obviously exists theoretically, at this point, we have not decided to do it.

The next question is from Alberto Artoni of Intesa Sanpaolo.

Just two from my side. The first is more strategic. And are you comfortable with the current assets of SocGen of today? Or are you willing to consider if you're not the best owner of everything, as you've said in the past? Or do you think that the journey is pretty much done? And the second question is just a little bit more color on the cost of risk, given the uncertainty that we see at the geopolitical level, macroeconomic level? I think your remarks were quite constructive, but if you can just give a little bit more color on the numbers that actually are pretty strong on that front.

Thank you for your question. On the portfolio of assets, well, after what we've done, we feel today reasonably comfortable that we're are decent, if not the best, but very decent shareholder of most of the businesses that we either own or run within the mother company. Now what we committed to at the CMD, which is to keep a very close eye on the performance and the strategic equation of all businesses remains true. So we will continue every single day, so to speak, to monitor the performance and the changes in competitive dynamics and strategic dynamics in our assets. And we will make sure that if the parameters that I very often commented upon in this call, which are headline ROE, ROE versus cost of equity, amount of synergies, tail-risk et cetera, all these criteria if a business were to fall outside of, let's say, what we target from this perspective, it will be instantly puts in a situation where we would review our strategic options.

But clearly, at this point in time, we are very much towards the end of this adjustment process in terms of this portfolio. In terms of cost of risk, giving you a little bit more color. Listen, today, within an environment which was of resilient growth worldwide, lots of uncertainty and lots of clients, issuers and corporates, et cetera, being in a wait and see mode, we have not seen a material deterioration in the asset quality or in the, let's say, the macro outlook for the asset quality of our portfolio for all kinds of reasons. I mean, we do run from this perspective, a very rigorous risk management apparatus and strategy. So origination quality is one factor.

But also, I mean, clients have had opportunities through the inflation cycle to rebuild somehow or increase their margins. They have had also access to liquidity, albeit a little more expensive, but they have had access to liquidity as well. So overall, the parameters are still -- frankly, we see them as very constructively across our entire portfolio, including in France, which shows good resilience.

Now while uncertainties have abated a little bit this past, literally 10 days in terms of the whole tariff saga and the likes, we are still in a world where the risk of significant disruptions to international trade, to supply chain, because in the tariffs, the supply chain aspect is almost most important than -- more important than the straight trade considerations.

We remain in an environment where the uncertainty while lower than 3 weeks ago is still high. So from this perspective, I do expect some more prudent attitude, maybe a little less wait and see, but still some of that happening and which I also see as a stability factor in terms of the portfolio. So at this point in time, across the entire business portfolio that we have, retail, wholesale, we still are very constructive.

The next question is from Anke Reingen of RBC.

I just have two small questions. The first is on the mix of your distribution of 50%. Is the distribution -- the cash distribution in the first half a good indication for the mix between cash and buybacks for the full year? And then secondly, on your capital path, you showed 8 basis points benefit in the capital ratio from regulatory benefits. Is there anything more we should be expecting?

Thank you. So on the regulatory first, on the -- it's -- I mean, you know the drill. The entire industry in Europe is subject constantly to all kinds of reviews by the regulators across all of the businesses. And in the past, it resulted in a number of headwinds for the industry in terms of add-ons and et cetera. But in essence, these add-ons are meant to be temporary. So temporality with the regulator is not exactly the same as with normal human being. So things tend to take a lot of time, especially when it's on the removal of temporary add-on side.

But listen, this time around, we got that the right way. And so you should not see these as substantial flows. Things will happen both ways but this will not be a substantial impact to the overall equation either way. So that's for that. If I got your question because I had trouble hearing the beginning of your question, but if your question was 35% versus -- why don't you take that, Leo?

Sure. In that regard basically what we wanted to be, it's conservative on this front, and we want to have an interim dividend, which is lower than the final cash dividend at year-end. Dividend policy has not changed in that regard and we have a balanced mix between cash dividend and share buybacks. The only thing that we did in Q1, it's to be conservative on the interim dividend, and that's why it was 35%. So that the year-end final cash dividend should be higher than the interim one. But we have not changed our policy in that regard. I mean, with regards to the mix of cash and share buyback, which remain the same, and it's balanced.

The next question is from Chris Hallam of Goldman Sachs.

I just have two -- last two short ones. I guess, on the buyback, when did you apply for approval? I thought that was happening after the FRTB question was settled which I guess would mean that the approval was super quick. So I guess, is that correct? And did you learn anything from that process?

And then second, slightly tangential, but we have the stress test results tomorrow night, anything you think we should look out for or consider for SocGen, in particular or for the sector more broadly considering your [ ETF ] role?

So on the first question, I can't comment on the particulars, obviously, but we try to be very precise in our communication and what you described of our communication is a fact. Let me leave it at that. So on the stress test results, I mean, same thing we can't comment, it is going to come out tomorrow. But listen, I mean, considering just the helicopter view, I mean, normally, right, in an environment which, as we discussed throughout the call, remains resilient, not extraordinarily supportive but resilient, and with, I assume, the overall progress that the industry makes under the leadership of its supervisor, I would expect things to improve, right, not to deteriorate. That's all I can say, right, but it's a theoretical comment.

The final question is from Pierre Chedeville of CIC Market Solutions.

Two questions. First question regarding securitization operation. One of your competitor insists on the fact but it's very useful tool to manage capital. And I wanted to know where do you stand regarding this type of operation, if you have any program, any policy regarding that?

Second question is regarding consumer credit. You mentioned that the situation is better. But at the end of the day, it remains quite small and not very profitable compared to your main competitors in France and in Europe. And I wanted to know if you have somewhere here a plan to develop organically or by external growth this business, which is -- which seems to be in a better shape? And maybe as I am the final one, last question. Do you have any equipment rate in mind regarding protection products in your retail -- French Retail banking?

Thank you. Thank you. So on the securitization of the SRTs, so very simple and clear answer. In our case, we use these techniques virtually only for risk management purposes, which is another way of saying that it does not have a material impact on our capital trajectory and is not intended to have one. We believe that for all kinds of reasons, overusing these two in terms of capital management is tricky, right? And we don't want to engage in this and so we are not engaging in this. So that's for the securitization piece.

On consumer credit, listen, it's a matter of business mix. The performance improves. It's a business which has been challenged, obviously, in France by the whole usually rate issues, et cetera, compressing margins and at times where post COVID actually in the high inflation environment, the cost of risk has risen in the market. And through normal adjustments, both in terms of origination criteria, better margins, no longer usury rate issues, the business is both growing at a very decent pace, but also generating better margins and better returns. And we have had a very good history in terms of profitability for this business in terms of ROE.

And while, obviously, there was a compression in the context that I just described, it is now slowly converging back to the historical level. So we're very comfortable with that business from this perspective. And today, we do not have any plans to increase its size within our business mix. It's a good business when will run, we're happy with it. It's not on our exit list and has never been, but it's not also an area of focus for anything inorganic in particular.

Last question. I mean we do not disclose these equipment rates. But as you know, and I'm sure this is also why you're asking the question, it is a product which historically was -- we were later to the game, so to speak, on the protection products, and we are focusing on the growth but we are, in terms of market rate below the best competitors that we have in France, which we see as an opportunity for further growth in terms of fees and revenues in the French retail.

There are no more questions registered at this time, back to you for any closing remarks, please.

So thank you very much. Thank you for your time. I know you're very busy, so thank you very much for making the time. And listen, I wish you a nice summer, especially if you're taking a break, and I do look forward to speaking with you again for Q3. Thank you very much again, and take care.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's Société Générale conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.