BNP Paribas SA (BNP) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, fine ladies and gentlemen. I trust you're doing well, and welcome to BNP Paribas' Third Quarter 2022 Results Presentation. Proved in the presentation, the progress on our planned GTS 2025 and its efficiency stands out. You will see the plan at work through the solid third quarter results with the bottom line up 10%, accompanied by jaws at the group level as well as divisions. Moreover, you will see many examples of growth levers, technology rolling out and sustainability stepping up, GTS. On growth, in particular, you will see our unique position, BNP Paribas' unique position in accelerating our organic growth via bolt-on acquisitions, enhancing the profitability even further. In the usual way, I'll take you through the first chapters of the results presentation and then hand it over to you for Q&A. So moving on to this core presentation. Let's focus on the key messages first, Slide 3. Indeed, the group results were strong, combining revenue growth, positive jaws and a prudent risk management. These performances illustrate our unique positioning and competitive edge in Europe based on our client-centric approach, the strength of our leading franchises and scalable platforms, as well as our capacity to sustain growth through a robust business momentum. Looking at group revenues, they were up sharply, 8%, stemming from the 3 divisions with a solid increase by CIB, strong growth at CPBS and a strong rise for Investment & Protection Services. Supporting the growth and activity, costs have increased by 6% and by 2.8% on a like-for-like basis at group level and as compared to a year ago. Half the increase was due to scope and exchange rate effects. So what you can see is that the group continues to benefit not only from a strong potential for growth, but also from a strong operational performance, delivering, what else can I say, strong positive jaws of 2 points. Underlying group cost of risk stood at 31 basis points over loans outstanding as a testimony to our sound, long-term and proactive risk management. All in all, a steep rise in the group's net income, clocking in at EUR 2.8 billion, up 10%. Turning to the group's CET1 ratio standing at 12.1% in the third quarter with an ROTE at 11.4% as an illustration of our reinforced profitability. So in a nutshell, very good and clean results again this quarter, demonstrating our unique setup and delivery as articulated in the GTS 2025 plan. And of course, disciplined growth seen through our positive tools. If we now switch to Slide 4, you can see that BNP Paribas' model has delivered, since the third quarter 2018, a sustained growth in net income averaging 4%, maintaining a well-balanced contribution from all 3 divisions. On the bottom left chart on operating expenses, we have evidenced the impact of ForEx and scope effects, which explain a significant part of the increase quarter-on-quarter. The remaining part represents a 2.7% increase in operating expenses, resulting from organic growth as inflation is basically counterbalanced by our recurring savings, which have materialized once again in the third quarter. To illustrate our ability to deliver positive jaws, I remind you the key drivers which structurally sustain them. First, a strong potential to grow at marginal cost on the back of our leading platforms; second, a constant focus on operational efficiency and the commitment to deliver net cost savings evenly throughout the plan. And this leads to a group's jaws effect standing at 2 points with positive jaws in each division. If we now go to Slide 5, where you can see that our model is providing a solid base for growth, fueled by additional recurring income, stemming from strategic developments finalized in 2022, and this basically for each division. These investments have been conducted with 3 main objectives, which are at the core of our strategy and sustained by our diversified and integrated model. First, acceleration in organic growth, leveraging our leading platforms; second, investments in new technologies and innovative business models; and third, bolt-on acquisitions and value-added businesses in line with the strategy of these businesses. So no wild goose chase, but a very focused and stepping stone approach. For example, in 2022, we broadened our offer and invested in new technologies, be it at CIB with the strengthening of the equities franchise, or within CPBS, in the payments and e-commerce areas with FLOA, and more recently for actually both divisions, Kantox, an automated platform for currency risk management for corporates. Furthermore, we accelerated growth with targeted acquisitions and partnerships for Asset Management, Arval and Personal Finance. And last, we adapted our operating model to deliver even more efficiency and achieve a better quality of service as illustrated by our partnership with bpost bank in Belgium as a complementary and differentiated distribution channel. All these acquisitions and partnerships should provide more than EUR 1.4 billion in revenues as soon as 2022, and around EUR 2 billion on a full year basis with the ramp up. This accelerated growth is allowed by our solid capital position. It has led to an impact on our CET1 to the tune of 20 basis points with an estimated related return already up to 10% in 2022 and forecasted at 17% in 2025. This process or this redeployment will continue to be stepped up and is to be supported by the capital to be released with the sale of Bank of the West, a solid backdrop upon which the group will continue to accelerate its growth aside an extraordinary distribution by way of share buyback to neutralize the expected dilution for a global amount of around EUR 4 billion. Furthermore, this growth is also accompanied by the positive effect related to the interest rate hikes, which have materialized in the past quarters and were not taken into account when we made and announced the planned GTS 2025. On this effect of the rates and the associated weight management actions, they should generate a positive impact on the net interest income in 2025 at a level above EUR 2 billion over and above, which was provided in the target in February. Finally, let me reiterate that growth will continue to be disciplined with a clear and firm focus on posted jaws as demonstrated again this year. So with this, if we advance to Slide 6. Where we see that, thanks to our long-term prudent and proactive risk management policy, we have built a portfolio of a high quality in terms of risk profile. As you know, this is a real and proven differentiating stance, as illustrated by our cost of risk on gross operating income, so revenues minus costs, which is one of the lowest amongst European peers. In addition, we have continuously improved our risk profile since ever actually, but let's say, since 2012, be it by adapting our product mix or exiting gradually certain geographies, businesses or sectors. It is the case, for instance, in Italy, where cost of risk has significantly decreased from around 120 basis points back in 2016 to around 60 basis points this quarter as a result of a repositioning in our client portfolios. And this is also the case in Personal Finance, where a greater focus on particularly auto loans with an average cost of risk of around 45 basis points structurally drives the decrease of cost of risk. Not to mention our prudent provisioning policy with an additional forward-looking EUR 710 million provisioning in the second and third quarter of this year pertaining to the indirect effects of the invasion of Ukraine as well as higher inflation and interest rates. Finally, our coverage rate of doubtful debt clocks in high at 73%, thanks to this prudent approach and high level of collateralization. So in a nutshell, our stance makes us well prepared for potentially tougher times and comforts our guidance of 40 basis points every year. If we now turn to Slide 8. You can see the exceptional items for the third quarter, and they are basically negative on the whole. 2/3 is due to the impact of the specific law passed on credit holidays in Poland for an immediate negative impact of EUR 204 million that we registered in the cost of risk. The remaining is linked to the restructuring costs as well as IT reinforcement. If with this, you swipe to Slide 9, you can see the strong performance of the group in the third quarter, accompanied by a strong return on tangible equity. The financial performance has improved year-over-year on all items, all the way down to the bottom line, leading to a net income up by, what else can I say, a handsome 10% year-on-year. On track with the plan, the group has delivered a return on tangible equity of 11.4% with an earnings per share up by 12.8% year-on-year. So this is a synthesis of the group. And if we now move to the revenues of the operating divisions, which you can see on Slide 10, so they grew with a solid 8.3% year-on-year or 5.3% on a like-for-like basis. This charming growth has been achieved on the back of a strong performance from all divisions. We are emphasizing the strength of our model. And as there are 3, let's start with the first. CIB revenues grew by a solid 5.9%, 2% on a like-for-like basis, with very good results supported by a buoyant client activity, strong performances in Global Markets and Securities Services, combined with a resilient global banking in a tough market. Second, a strong momentum for CPBS with a 9.6% increase on the back of our commercial and personal banking activities with a strong performance, notably in France, Luxembourg, and outside the euro zone. Furthermore, this quarter, our specialized businesses had a very strong growth. Last but not least, of course, in a subdued market environment, IPS delivered a strong increase in revenues at 8.9% with in particular good performances in Insurance and Wealth Management. If I can now ask you to flick to Slide 11. Costs up 5.9% or 2.8% like-for-like. And this in the operating divisions, as we mentioned, and generating strong positive jaws in these operating divisions of 2.4 points. Costs mainly accompanied the strong business growth, combined with, on top, a significant ForEx and scope impact as described earlier. It is again a tribute to the high operational efficiency of our leading platforms and ability to grow at marginal cost. Again, if we look at the 3 divisions, starting with CIB. The division delivered positive jaws at 1.4 points. Costs were stable on a like-for-like basis. For CPBS as well, positive jaws, 2.6 points, thanks to continued cost savings and transformation in the operating model. Costs were up 4.5% year-on-year on a like-for-like basis, in line with strong growth in activity and scope. Third, IPS, costs were up 4.8% year-on-year, supporting the business as well as targeted investments, generating a very positive jaws effect of 4.2 points. Staying in the operating divisions and looking at the cost of risk, Slide 12. You can see that it stood at a low underlying level of 31 basis points of loans outstanding. And this, excluding the exceptional impact on Poland, slightly lower than in the same quarter last year. So what does this stem from? First of all, low impairment or nonperforming loans, so-called Stage 3 provisions. And second, our prudent approach, leading to ex-ante provisions, so-called Stage 1 and 2 on performing loans in relation to the side effects of the invasion of Ukraine and higher inflation and interest rates up with a tad shy of EUR 200 million this quarter and EUR 710 million, adding the provisioning in the second quarter. You can see on Slide 6. Both are again attributed to the quality of our portfolios and prudent risk approach. Now moving on to each business one by one. You will see the same cost of risk pattern, so a low level of cost of risk across the board as we don't see deterioration in credit quality. If we now turn to Slide 15, you can see that our common equity Tier 1 ratio stands at 12.1%. The CET1 ratio was down 10 basis points versus a quarter ago, stemming from basically 3 levers. First of all, a plus 10 basis points organic capital generation on the back of the contribution of the third quarter results after setting aside 60% for distribution and net of the organic growth of RWAs, plus 10 basis points. Then there is a ForEx effect of 10 basis points, minus 10 basis points, given the strengthening of the U.S. dollar. And thirdly, there is a minus 10 basis point impact of market prices on OCI given the fact that both debt and equities were moving in the same way as basically we have seen for most of the banks coming out with results. Looking through the temporary impacts on CET1. You observed that BNP Paribas is in great shape and as such has continued to accelerate our growth by supporting our clients and the economy. Moreover, the benefit from the capital that will be realized by the sale of Bank of the West, I remind you, around EUR 7 billion after the neutralization of the expected dilution, is the bedrock upon which the group will continue to accelerate growth while ensuring a solid level of CET1 consistent with the 2025 objective. Our leverage ratio stood improved at 3.9%, increasing by 10 basis points with a trajectory to be accelerated to reach our target at 4.2% through the ramping up of AT1. Then to top up the overall view at the group and before going into the businesses, you see that on Slide 16, you can see the usual steady growth of our tangible net book value per share standing at EUR 79.3, up EUR 2.5 compared to last year. And also, as you know, the bank is acting as a responsible and sustainable bank. And acting, I mean, it's at the heart of BNP Paribas company purpose and is a key pillar of our 2025 GTS plan as demonstrated by the impressive list of actions, commitments, partnerships that you can see on Slide 17 and 18. The group is fully engaged around 5 major priorities, combining levers as per the United Nations goals, sustainable development goals. First, savings, sustainable investments and financings; secondly, transition to carbon neutrality; third, natural capital and biodiversity; fourth, social inclusion; and five, circular economy. Besides, the group has also been recognized for the best net zero progress of the year in EMEA by environmental finance. BNP Paribas has also been distinguished as the only bank with the Asset Owner Alliance label for its actions on diversity, inclusion and professional equality. To top it off, I'll leave you to scan Slide 18 on internal control and compliance, emphasizing the rigorous and diligent implementation of all the necessary measures to the enforcement of international sanctions. So it is. I would now kindly ask you to advance to the first quarter results by division, starting with Slide 21 on CIB, which saw another quarter of very good results, thanks to strong client activity, building on a stronger than ever capacity to support clients. Indeed, the business activity was solid again this quarter, confirming CIB leading market shares and financing for EMEA as well as in transaction banking. The division is also consolidating its leadership on multi-dealer electronic platforms. So first, in an unfavorable context, a resilient performance of Global Banking, with revenues down 7.9%. Compared to a high base a year ago, they were impacted this quarter by markdowns on unsold leverage financing syndication positions as it was the case in a more marked way for our peers and particularly in the U.S. In this context, revenues held up well, supported by strong gains in trade finance and cash management in all regions and a particularly high growth for APAC. In a nutshell, a strong resilience for Global Banking with further gains in market shares in financing in EMEA. The second part of CIB, supported by a sustained overall client activity, Global Markets revenues grew strongly at 14.7%, thanks to a high demand from our clients in hedging across the board and geographies, and in particular, a very good performance in commodity derivatives rates, ForEx and emerging markets. So basically, all letters in FICC, if you want. Hence, a very good performance for that FICC with revenues up sharply 25% year-on-year. Moreover, our equity activities also showed a good momentum on derivatives as well as a good contribution from prime services, but a less favorable context for primary and credit activities. In this context, revenues increased by 3.3%. To illustrate the new dimension of our equity business, revenues have more than doubled compared to 2019. And last but not least, you know that digitalization and industrialization are key. Our leadership was again confirmed with our #1 position on multi-dealer electronic platforms across markets. The third part of CIB, Security Service achieved again this quarter a very high volume of transactions on the back of a strong business drive. In a challenging environment, assets held up well on the back of the rollout of major new mandates won in '21 and '22. And this sustained by a diversified setup towards buy and sell side, further boosted by the positive impact of the interest rate environment. Revenues increased by a material 10% year-on-year, very strong performance as this resulted in a more than decent increase in CIB revenues, up 5.9%. Total CIB costs were up 4.5%, driven by mainly exchange rate effects. They were stable on a like-for-like basis and accompanied by a positive jaws effect of 1.4 points. Gross operating income, so the difference between the 2, was up 8%, and accompanied by a low cost of rate. Hence, CIB generated EUR 1.4 billion of pretax income, up 3%. To wrap up the first division, a very good performance for CIB as a continued illustration of our leadership position, served by the new dimension of the platform, structuring our ability to match and serve corporate and institutional client needs while sticking to our prudent approach. So that's the first division. If you now turn to Slide 25 to 33, Commercial, Personal Banking and Services. As you can see, CPBS benefited from a sustained business drive. Hence, results were up sharply with very positive tone. In the new digital business, first, Nickel continued its development in Europe as well as the acceleration of accounts opening this quarter in France and Spain, reaching more than 2.9 million accounts opened since inception, of which more than 1 million over the last 2 years. Second, FLOA continued to have a good level of production with 4 million customers as at end of September. Arval confirmed a very good performance, supported by the expansion of the finance fleet, plus 5%, and used car prices remaining high. Outstanding is increasing with a good resilience of the business at Leasing Solutions. If you now look at the balance sheet, both sides, loans, deposits. Loans were up 8% and deposits grew 7% across all businesses. Moreover, the division continued the transformation in its operating model and investments in new technologies, further reinforcing its ability to serve clients, for instance, with the acquisition of a platform of automation of foreign exchange currency risk management for corporates. In terms of P&L, CPBS revenues were up by a vivid 9.6% on the second quarter with a strong -- sorry, the third quarter, with a strong performance in Commercial and Personal Banking and a steep increase in Specialized Businesses. Starting with Commercial and Personal Banking, revenues are up 7%, benefiting from a favorable interest rate environment and increasing volumes. So net interest income increased by 8.4%. If we look at France, net interest income increased by 4.7%, while in Euro-Med, it increased up to 22%. It was more contrasted when we look at Belgium as a result of a base effect of last year. At BNL, the positive impact of increased volumes and interest rate environment was offset by the gradual adjustments in loan margins. Then if we look at the other part of the top line, fees, dented by unfavorable market performance, but boosted by our leading positions in flow businesses and favorable positioning on corporates, private banking and mass affluent clients, the fees increased shy of 3% year-on-year. They marked a steep rise in France, up 7.7% on all customer segments and more specifically with corporate clients. Elsewhere, in the euro zone, the growth in banking fees was counterbalanced by the decrease in financial fees as a result of the unfavorable market environment. If you now look at the specialized businesses within CPBS. Revenues were up 14.7%. In it, Arval and Leasing Solutions saw a sharp increase of 32.9% on the back of high used car prices as well as volume growth. Personal Finance saw revenues up 5.8%, topped up by the integration of FLOA and loan production volumes increased by 8% on last year despite a lackluster environment in the automotive industry. So that's basically the top line in CPBS. And then if we look at the operating expenses, they were up 7%, reflecting the strong business momentum with strong positive jaws, 2.6 points. On a like-for-like basis, operating expenses are up 4.5%, reflecting the capacity of our commercial and personal banking networks to contain their costs and deliver operational efficiencies. Similarly, the specialized businesses confirmed their potential to grow at marginal cost with an extremely high positive jaws effect for Arval and Leasing Solutions, very high, basically 24 points. Regarding our risk profile, allow me for our focus this quarter on BNL and Personal Finance. You can see on the Slide 27 and 31, the results of our initiatives over time to constantly improve our cost of risk charge on these 2 main contributors. Indeed, start with BNL. Portfolio has been moved away from very small enterprises towards larger corporates with higher intrinsic asset quality, higher growth, applying high selectivity at origination, higher recourse to guarantees, and finally, an acceleration of the NPL strategy. It resulted in a structural decrease in the cost of risk from around 120 basis points back in 2016, down to 57 basis points in the third quarter. Secondly, if we look at Personal Finance, where also we stepped up the proactive risk management and structural changes leading to an improved risk profile. As illustrated, the auto business represents now close to 40% of loans outstanding with a much lower intrinsic cost of risk at 45 basis points versus 190 basis points for personal loans. Moreover, the portion of credit cards fell to 11% of the mix. To conclude, a strong quarter for CPBS overall with a pretax income at EUR 2.1 billion, up 8.6%, combining strong business momentum and a continued overall efficiency with once again positive jaws. Let's now move to Slide 34 to 37, where you can see that our investment and protection services to the IPS division witnessed an overall good business drive despite the market environment and displayed a strong growth in results. And this, in a difficult market context, net asset inflows held up well. In Wealth Management, business activities was good this quarter on the back of good net asset inflow notably in France as well as with high net worth clients. Despite these challenging market conditions, Asset Management achieved positive net inflows this quarter, emphasizing the resilience of the business model. Insurance saw continued business momentum with a good performance on savings and protection. Gross inflows were strong in France and unit-linked represented the bulk of net inflows. Simultaneously, ESG is deeply embedded in the business with the distribution of open-ended funds classified Article 8 and 9, according to the European regulation, the alignment of our insurance investment portfolios with a carbon-neutral trajectory, and the launch of a property fund with a social dimension. So this is the overview. So if we now look at the P&L, IPS revenues increased sharply at EUR 1.6 billion, up 8.9%. This is a result of a good performance of insurance, up 7.2%, despite the decrease in financial results caused by the more pronounced decline in market. It is also the result of the very good performance on the whole of Wealth and Asset Management, plus 10%, reflecting a notable increase in wealth management on the back of a solid increase in net interest income as well as a strong contribution from principal investments and real estate property management. Costs, up 4.8%, driven by business development and targeted investments. The division delivered very positive jaws, 4.2 points, and pretax income was up 34% with a very strong performance and particularly in the context. So to wrap up, strong results for IPS in a very adverse market. If we now switch to Slide 39 and 40, which concludes today's presentation. So in a nutshell, BNP Paribas is in great shape for growth. One, growth in revenues, positive jaws, prudent risk management at the core of the solid performance developed by the group through the past quarters. Second, BNP Paribas model is a clear competitive advantage, which drives our ability to serve clients and increase revenues. Third, our operational performance keeps on being high, resulting in positive jaws and our cost of risk remains low on the back of our long-term, proactive and prudent risk management. Fourth, in a nutshell, a powerful model, which outperforms the underlying economy, delivered a 10% growth in group net results this quarter and will ensure the successful execution of the 2025 GTS plan. So this concludes the third quarter. So fine ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your kind attention, and I'm pleased to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] First question from Tarik El Mejjad from Bank of America.

Just actually one key question. I mean you've demonstrated in the last few quarters and today, again, that your asset quality is strong. Personal Finance P&L and BancWest, you showed that actually it shifted towards lower risk profile structurally. The CIB clearly trading is holding well, no drama there. So this is where the main source of cost of risk in previous credit cycles. So where the surprise could come from, negative surprises this cycle? I mean the market is pricing in quite hefty cost of risk to come to explain your valuation. So what's really the area that could surprise and that maybe gives you a bit of wake, if anything on that? That's the first question. Second question is on the RWA growth, especially in CIB, where it's a profitable growth. I mean the return on allocated capital is very high and healthy driven by higher revenues and controlled costs. But the growth in the balance sheet is quite significant. I mean, it's in line with your GTS plan, but it came quite front-loaded. So is it on track and now you have to keep controlling your balance sheet, or you're comfortable growing it at this rhythm?

Tarik, thank you for your one question, which I understand is basically 2 questions. So first, if I start by the asset quality. And let me tell you, yes, I do sleep well at night. So the asset quality, what is the reason why we feel comfortable is that we are not a proxy basically for Europe. So if you look at the countries where we are and if you see the impact of the GDP and the like, that is above average. Moreover, if you look at the clients, our clients are basically corporates, institutionals, affluents, and the likes. So basically, what we see is that there are levers of the impact that can be managed. Moreover, if you look at what is so-called Stage 1 and stage 2, so the forward-looking levels of provisioning that we have, what else can I say, that we have truckloads of them. And that is why -- and then if you look at the third quarter where there is no indication of deterioration. So basically, all these are the elements why we feel comfortable to basically stick by our guidance of 40 basis points cost of risk every year over the plan. So that's on the asset quality. Then on your RWA growth, yes, intrinsically, we mentioned that at the base of our plan, our RWAs would grow at 3% annual level. And so it is true that now they grow a bit faster. The reason what we said is that basically in anticipation -- we basically guided that the redeployment of the proceeds of Bank of the West would, let's say, 1/3 would be used to accelerate growth if the market would allow it. And that's basically what we saw. Given some of the uncertainty, we saw some of the banks in the domain of CIB to be hesitant and so on. And so we basically stepped in. And we already, in anticipation, redeployed part of the capital that will stem from the sale of Bank of the West. So that's basically what it is. It's basically stepping up that part, but the intrinsic growth remains 3%. So Tarik, those would be my answers.

Next question from Jacques-Henri Gaulard from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Two questions for me. Thank you very much for the guidance on the interest income at plus EUR 2 billion. I was wondering how you broke that down at all, if it's something which is more backloaded, frontloaded? Or if for some simple money people like me, I should just divide the EUR 2 billion by 3 and play it like that? And the second question, you were mentioning your markdown on leverage finance. It doesn't look like it's not unsold -- sorry, leverage finance exposure. It doesn't seem to have been a big number really. Are you expecting more of that? Or do you think that this is not something which is going to recur?

Thank you for your questions. So first of all, on the net interest income. So the net interest income is something that is basically phased over time given the time it takes on the assets to reprice. And so that's why we say this is basically what we see in 2025. But you already see steps now, right? If you look at the evolution of the net interest income in CPBS, for example, in the third quarter, they are up 8%. So you already see the glimmer of that. Moreover, if you look at security services, up 10%, the same thing. So that is basically what you see. But it's a gradual ramping up, and it's already part is there and the EUR 2 billion full will be there in 2025. And then on leverage finance here, let's not forget I mean, this is kind of a temporary effect, right? So the things that have been originated and that we are warehousing in order to put them into the market, given what has happened in the market closed and so forth, leads to discounting. And so this is what we have to take up into our mark-to-market. But this is not a loss. The loss would crystallize if we would sell it at this price, so which is something, if the market will remain what it is, we will basically take it. So that's the first thing. So it's a temporary thing, and it's not a real loss. At this stage, it's an accounting loss. And indeed, it is very small. It's written for us with 2 digits, whereas in many others, you see 3 digits.

Next question is from Giulia Miotto from Morgan Stanley.

Two questions from me as well. The first one, maybe a technicality on TLTRO. Will the changes that the ECB has just put through impact BNP, perhaps any losses on hedges or any comments on your plans on this line? So that's my first question. And then secondly, if I can ask you about corporate clients. That's the biggest part of your clients. First of all, on loan growth, what are you seeing? What are they using it for? Is it investments or rather working capital at this stage? And then secondly, I appreciate BNP's exposure to the euro zone is focused on countries that are maybe less impacted, but still manufacturing is challenged across Europe given the energy prices. So do you foresee an increase in cost of risk next year?

Giulia, yes, if you look at the net interest income. So the simple thing is let's start, first of all, the EUR 2 billion increase in 2025 that we mentioned is, of course, independent, not impacted by the TLTRO. So if we look at the TLTRO decisions of last week, it basically made -- the TLTRO has basically become economically neutral. So there is no positive effect. But as I mentioned, in the EUR 2 billion and in all the plans that we have, we did not take the TLTRO into account. And so that's basically it. And then on -- we have a holistic approach when it comes to managing our risks, and therefore, it's basically factored in, in the overall interest rate risk management. So that is on the TLTRO. Then on corporate clients, what we see in the areas where we are. So if you look at corporate clients, there are several indicators that I look at. There are commercial indicators. So that basically is what are the kind of volumes in cash management, trade finance and so on and so forth. And those are basically remaining very dynamic. And so there's basically no deterioration whatsoever that we see. And then also, if you look at the basic lending activities, we see that, that activity remains very dynamic and very favorable. So that is basically what we see on those. And on the cost of risk, if you look at it, again, we are in the zones that are a tad less impacted than the average Europe. And again, our clients are the large corporates, the affluents and the likes. So they have possibilities to handle the things that they are facing. And so that is why I repeat, our cost of risk is low. We're basically on the Stage 3. There is hardly anything we see. That is what we anticipate. And even if there would be some pickup in cost of risk, that will be covered by S1 and S2. So really, what else can I say? I was going to say, read my lips, but this is not video. So listen to my lips. We basically anticipate 40 basis points every year until 2025. So Giulia, those would be my answers.

Next question is from Jon Peace from Credit Suisse.

So you indicated an additional EUR 2 billion of NII versus the plan. But I guess inflation is obviously running higher than you'd expected under the plan as well. So do you have a higher cost CAGR in mind out to 2025? Or should we just think of you maintaining the 2% jaws guidance off of a higher revenue CAGR? And then my second question is about BancWest and the buyback. Do you have any more detail on when exactly you think the deal will close? And when would you begin the buyback? Would it be straightaway or after full year results or after the AGM? And I presume the ECB is very happy given you're only returning a proportion of the EUR 11 billion capital?

Thank you for your questions. Well, the ECB is always happy, I guess. Sorry, that was not pun intended. So first of all, if you look at the objectives that we gave into our plan, there is a reason why we gave top line and jaws, because if there are evolutions like what we see for us, the main focus, what we will do and we will deliver is positive jaws. That's basically the thing. And then on Bank of the West. Well, listen, I don't have an exact date, but there were basically 3 files which were submitted to the authorities, and we were the second. The first file has been approved by the authorities back 2 weeks ago, so mid-October, let's say. So we are basically next in line. When exactly will that be? I don't know. So we'll see. But there is no indication that there would be any delay. So it should be anytime soon and when we know you will know. And so basically, yes, the process of basically neutralizing the effect of Bank of the West being gone, well, we have to wait until it's closed, and then we launch the process to basically launch that.

Next question is from Máté Nemes from UBS.

I have a few questions, please. The first one is still on the EUR 2 billion plus NII guidance until 2025. Can I just confirm that this is a gross impact, gross of any increase in funding costs? And secondly, is this simply based on the current forward rates or consensus forecast, if you could confirm that? And the second question is on costs and operating expenses. So far, it seems like the underlying OpEx increase is around 2%. So clearly, you're keeping a lid on that. Inflationary pressure is everywhere. I appreciate your comments on the jaws, but if you could just give us a sense what could we expect on underlying operating expenses going into 2023? Do you see any particular areas where it could be difficult to control these as tightly as you manage currently?

Máté, thank you for your questions. Yes, so the EUR 2 billion effect is basically on the picture that we had end of September. But the further evolutions should not necessarily materially change that. So that is the EUR 2 billion increase that we see stemming from that. Then when we look at the costs. So indeed, yes, we focus on the jaws, but there will indeed be, if you look at the dynamics that we anticipate. So that's basically already what you saw in the third quarter. There are some effects of inflation. There are some countries where by law salaries are impacted by inflation and so on and so forth. So there is some effect. But we will continue to fight this effect. This is what we've done, and this is what we will continue to do. So we will continue to see how we can further step up variablizing costs, how we can further step up our platforms, how we can further step up the consolidation of activities. So that is the 2 things. So there can be -- in some parts, there will be an impact of costs going up, but we will also step up further the fight and the optimization of the cost base. So Máté, that will be my 2 answers.

Next question from Kiri Vijayarajah from HSBC.

A couple of questions from my side. So firstly, on Arval and the used car sales margin, I know it still looks very high in absolute terms, but I'm looking at it quarter-on-quarter. Do you think we've seen the peak there now? And then looking forward, how quickly do you think the used car profit will start coming back to more normal levels? Should we start sort of penciling a more normal number for 2023? And then more broadly on your asset-heavy specialized businesses, I guess, including Arval, but also things like Personal Finance. How would you say that kind of the higher interest rates, the higher funding costs, they impact the revenue margin there in those particular businesses? And do you feel, at least in the short term, you've got enough scope to pass on the higher funding cost on the pricing side. So that's on the asset heavy specialized businesses.

Thank you for your questions. So first, if we take Arval. So Arval, let's not forget, yes, there is the second car value. But we are -- and everything is diversified. And like everything, it comes in 3, not the trees like where you can climb in bits of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, yes. And so basically, there is indeed a third, which is stemming from the retail value. There is a third, which is stemming from the volume of new cars and the related financing. And then thirdly, there is the added value. And so what we see is that at this stage, the amount of new cars and the financing related, it's down because the production is like 20% below where it was in 2019. And the resale value is higher. So yes, at some point in time -- and they are linked, the fact that there are less cars basically means that the resale value of second-hand cars is higher. So at some point in time, these things will neutralize, yes. So the secondhand car will come down whereas the volumes will go up. And so that is why we feel, in that diversified model, that the contribution of Arval will remain very charming. And then on Personal Finance, yes, on Personal Finance, what we have there is that intrinsically, the businesses that we have there are relatively short term, yes. So that basically means the volumes turnover, and therefore, the repricing capacity that we have will kick in. But indeed, yes, it will not be immediate. It will depend on the turnover. And so that's basically what we anticipate. So okay, those will be my answers.

Next question is from Andrew Stimpson from KBW.

Two questions for me, one on capital and then one on cost of risk, again, I'm afraid. So first one on capital. Outside of the BancWest deal, what are the moving parts in capital for the next few quarters? Are there any regulatory headwinds to come in that we should be conscious of? And then within that answer, I'd definitely be interested in your thoughts around what the ECB has been talking about around Pillar 2 increases and add-ons for climate risk and how they are kind of thinking about what you've been saying today on Slide 17. Is that the kind of messages they want to hear from you? Is that the right kind of stuff or not? And then secondly, on cost of risk, I definitely appreciate all the messages you've made around the quality of the client base and the platform you've got. I think we do all understand that. Nevertheless, the economic data is getting worse and the GDP data has been revised down significantly even from a quarter ago and now it's going to be negative next year for Europe. So that doesn't seem to have caused a big step change in your provisioning for this quarter. So if you're asked, what kind of metric, or whether it's a level of GDP or something else, would make you kind of materially step up your Stage 1 and 2 provisioning much higher, there's got to be something out there that would make you change your mind or make you more cautious?

Listen, maybe I got confused on your capital. Your question is that what are the other drivers, right, on what will impact capital? It was not related to Bank of the West. Or did I misunderstand your question?

No, no, I understand the Bank of the West impact. It's more like are there any other kind of regulatory headwinds that we...

Yes. No, I got it. I understood correctly. So if you look at it, there's basically 2 things that you can see in the press -- well, in the press. No, there's one thing, if there is a new regulation coming, well, there is one, which is IFRS 17 on insurance. So that is something where basically the spread in time and the interaction between capital and P&L will change. But that is something where we will basically, as IFRS 17 will be active next year, we will basically restate our results and take it from there. So that's the one thing. And then the second thing, on the Pillar 2 add-on that you mentioned on the climate risk. I take it that this stems from comments made by the ECB yesterday that basically they consider that banks have to adapt. And if they don't, there is the stick that they have on basically adding capital requirements. And so I basically probed on that. And so this is not a generic thing. This is just by saying, listen, as always, the supervisors have the tool of "Pillar 2" if there are concerns that they see that banks are not treating and that will come back to home then. But that is something that is not applicable for us. As you know, we are on the vanguard of all of these things -- all of the metrics that we are doing. So that's on the capital questions bar Bank of the West and the redeployment of Bank of the West. And then when we look at the cost of risk, no, listen, on the cost of risk, again, as I mentioned, we consider that the 40 basis points is a maximum. So it's a maximum for us. Every given year, that's the maximum. Like this year, it will not be there, and that's basically it. So again, why do we say this? But again, if you look at the economy, BNP Paribas is typically performing better than the economy, because we are basically in countries that already have an outlook in the economy above average in Europe. And then moreover, we are in the metropolitan areas, yes? So in France, we're in Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon. So that is also an evolution, which is a tad above what the average in the country is. So that's basically what we are doing. And again, on the Stage 3, so the ones that are in default situation, there is hardly any need to add on top. And then we have taken into account the deterioration in the scenarios, deterioration in inflation, deterioration in the war and so forth, to basically step up our provisioning S1 and S2. And as I mentioned, basically, in the long quarters, we've stepped up, we've added EUR 700 million. So what else can I say? So in synthesis, again, we are in a positioning in the countries, in the clients, in the way we accompany clients, in the way we underwrite clients, we are typically performing better than the average economies. Moreover, we don't see any in the Stage 3. On the S1 and the S2, we stepped up. And so again, that's why we feel comfortable to say that the maximum in any given year will be 40 basis points. And as you see already this year, we are well below that. So Andrew, that will be my answer.

Next question from Amit Goel from Barclays.

I just wanted to -- I mean, I appreciate there's been a few questions on NII. But just another one on that. I just want to understand, I mean, obviously, there's been this EUR 2 billion incremental income versus the plan. I mean we've spoken a bit about inflationary pressures, too. But how do you think about that from an investment standpoint? Do you think that gives more room obviously with the cost-to-income ratio to invest a bit more into the business? And so just curious your thoughts there. And then secondly, just curious in terms of what that bakes in, in terms of, are there any kind of offsetting factors we should also think about in terms of the net contribution to NII?

Thank you for your questions. So yes, basically -- so we made a plan in moments when the rates were different. And we basically said this plan is built on the so-called GTS, growth, technology, sustainability. And so that is what we're doing. So we're continuing to transform the bank, to roll out our platforms. That's intrinsically what we do, and that's kind of the base. And what we see is that in that environment of interest income, yes, there will be EUR 2 billion more. But intrinsically, we stay on our plan. I mean, because of the plan, we grow as fast as we can, fast as we can, meaning, underwriting the clients with the constraints and the prudent stance that we have. So that's basically what we do. We grow as fast as our overrun prudent stance allows. And basically, that is in the plan and that will be accelerated somewhat by the proceeds with Bank of the West. And so we basically stick to the rollout in the plan. And then if you look at the pickup in the net interest income. Well, the thing is, the net interest income, as we forecasted in the countries where we are, it is a gradual increase. And so what could be a risk -- it could be a risk, but in particular, in the situations where the step-up in net interest income can be very rapid and basically massive. Because if that's what is happening, and on top of that, if you would be really on the personal banking kind of sphere, that would lead to a pickup in cost of risk. But as you've seen with us, it's basically a phased pickup, we are basically on corporates, we are basically on the affluents. So from that point of view, for us, and it's back to the maximum of 40 basis points, that's basically it. So the higher risk would be on the cost of risk. But in particular, in situations where the net interest income would step up a lot faster, and for banks that have basically, let's say, the retail at the core of their client base. So I mean, that would be my 2 answers.

Next question is from Matthew Clark from Mediobanca.

So just a question on the FX headwind in your CET1 firstly. I just wanted to understand if there has been any mark-to-market impact from the hedging of the BancWest proceeds that you've taken into shareholders' equity or through your P&L so far this year or whether that's a kind of deal contingent hedge that will only impact you at the closing of the deal? And then the next question was just on the sequential NII trends in your retail divisions where they were sort of down in several quarter-on-quarter this quarter. How long should we have to wait until we start to see some of the benefits if the rate rises start to creep through there. I understand the EUR 2 billion over 3 years and that you're long and sensitive, so it will come gradually. But it looks like you have actively hedged out short-term interest rate risk there. So I'm just wondering how long until we start to see that gradual benefit come through, whether we have to wait more quarters or whether we should start seeing it next quarter?

All right. Thank you, Matthew. Well, several things. So on the ForEx, the ForEx, it's basically linked to the impact, for example, on the RWAs. So the RWAs, if they are basically not in the euro zone that basically makes that effect, and that's basically what you see that weighs on it. That's basically it. There's nothing else basically to mention. There's no particular hedging effects when it comes to Bank of the West. And when it comes to growth, yes, I understand that, indeed, the net interest income and the phasing. But let's not forget, that is -- and I'll answer your question on the phasing. It's one of the elements, but let's not forget that, that is one element, yes. If you look at the redeployment and all of the acquisitions and the bolt-ons that we have done, that delivers a tremendous growth, which is quite unique to BNP Paribas. So back to the net interest income. So as I mentioned, the net interest income, and particularly in the countries where we are, it takes time to materialize on the asset side. So that is why it is ramping up towards 2025. And then if you compare quarter after quarter, and particularly if you compare it to previous quarter, there was a base effect, and particularly in Belgium, that base is distorted. So if you compare it to a year ago, where you see the evolution, the evolutions that I mentioned, both in CPBS and also in security services. So that is basically what it is. It is ramping up on the asset side. Again, this makes us comfortable that there will be no negative effects in the cost of risk. And on top of that, there is the phasing-in of the new assets with the redeployment of the proceeds from Bank of the West. So that's basically the growth for BNP Paribas.

Next question from Flora Bocahut from Jefferies.

Yes. The 2 questions I have. The first is regarding the talks apparently from the ECB around potentially the new capital add-on on leverage finance exposure. Obviously, you would probably be one of the players most at risk on that front. So any idea how much of a capital add-on we will be talking about there, so we have an idea of the magnitude. And the second question is regarding the remuneration on the excess reserves at Central Banks and especially at the ECB, you have substantial amount. So I was just wondering if, like the TLTRO, those are booked in the business lines or if this is booked in the Corporate Center?

Flora, thank you for your questions. So yes, when you look on the ECB and the stance on that leverage financing, what we see is that, indeed, the ECB considered it as a point of attention, let's put it this way. But the thing is -- and they use a criteria. They basically say, well, the trigger for that is EBITDA multiple, like, for example, 6 is a consideration. Now the thing is, if you go to the U.S., you basically see there is also that EBITDA of 6, we say it's the same thing, but there is a difference. In the U.S., there is EBITDA 6x and then there is common. And the common is, yes, but do you have collateral? Do you have the, over the last couple of years, continuously served all their needs? Is it a long-term client? So there all kinds of criteria. And so that is something that the ECB is also looking at. So they say, yes, this is a point of attention. But the important thing is that they have time to consider how banks are basically managing that. What stance they have? How large are the tickets? Are there multiple small tickets, so on and so forth. And so that's what they do. And so they can consider that this is a point that they want to consider into the overall risk is what they do. And then they basically want to make sure that they talk to all of the banks to see how it is managed. And that's basically with all the things that they do, right? It wasn't the time of the liquidity. It was the same thing. So that's basically what we see them doing. And so on your question of the reserve deposited at the ECB. Well, that is for us a relatively small amount. It's a tad shy of EUR 50 million that one could anticipate, and so that will be foregone. That's basically it, Flora.

Next question from Delphine Lee from JPMorgan.

Yes. So my first question is -- sorry, just going back to the interest rate sensitivity, that EUR 2 billion. Just wondering if you could share with us a little bit more color around the assumptions that you have used for that EUR 2 billion in terms of the deposit beta or in terms of the repricing on the loans if you -- just wondering, kind of, for example, what assumptions you have taken on DVA, for example? I know it's small for you, but still just wondering. And then my second question is just on the Corporate Center. If you adjust for the DVA gains for both this quarter or for the 9 months, it looks like the revenues were quite negative. Can you just maybe explain a little bit what happened or what runway should we expect in the future?

Delphine, thank you for your questions. Listen, in order to give guidance and the likes, what we typically always do is that whatever guidance we give is kind of bottom-up and we crystallize it so that there are no surprises. And so that's basically what we've done. So we basically looked in all of the countries where we are bottom up, long discussion, what is the behavior on the deposits, what is the behavior on the assets, what is the repricing. And that's basically the process that we have done, and that we have underbuilt the evolution. Then when it comes to the Corporate Center. The Corporate Center, listen, it's something which has its own life, yes? So there are elements that play in there, which are like the time value of shares, having shares of BNP Paribas in the books and you have to eliminate them and the like. So that's basically what happens. And so yes, one quarter, they can be the time value of things and then the previous year it cannot be there. So if you look at the Corporate Center over the first 9 months, you basically see that the impact is negligible as we have guided. So that's basically the life of that. There's nothing in particular to mention. So Delphine, that will be my 2 answers.

Thank you. Next question is from Anke Reingen from RBC.

The first is on the distribution for financial year 2022. So you accrued 60%. I just wanted to understand at what point you decide about the mix, as you say, up to 50%? Because I guess last year, you announced a buyback with Q3 results. And I mean this is only next year you would be running the BancWest buyback hopefully at the same time. So how would you think about the mix under these circumstances. And then on Slide 5, where you talk about, not just the NII uplift, but also about the benefit of the bolt-on acquisitions. Are most of them incremental to your 2025 plan as well? Or are they basically already baked in?

Okay. I'm not sure, could you reprise your second question when you asked about the distribution, that I understand. And then Bank of the West, can you rephrase your question?

Yes. So if you only decide with full year results about the mix of the distribution for financial year 2022. So let's say, I mean, you decide maybe 10 -- or 60% as buyback. But how would that impact this work? Because I guess you want to start the BancWest buyback as well. So is it more likely that the 60% are as a cash dividend?

No, no. Anke, thank you for your questions. No, the thing is, listen, we basically mentioned that the distribution of any given year would be, let's say, 60% with at least 50% in cash. So the way it looks like that what it would be, right? It would be 50% cash, 10% of share buyback, and that's basically it. And then the rest is basically the share buyback related to Bank of the West. So if you look at it, I put it simple, right? I mean, if you basically look at that, there's EUR 4 billion share buyback to neutralize Bank of the West, let's say. And then if you take the results and you take 10 basis points, that would be, I don't know, what, another EUR 1 billion. So that would be EUR 5 billion. And that's basically what we would do, and that would be whatever the time it takes to do so. So that's it. So it would be 50-10, and then EUR 4 billion on top.

Okay. And I mean, I guess, you need to wait for full year results or your AGM? Because I guess, last year, you announced the buyback with Q3 results.

No. Yes, but the thing is here we want to make sure that the 50% and the 10% basically work, right? And so that's why it would be more logical. Listen, we have to serve equity and debt investors. And so if we want to have that evolution, so probably for the 50 and 10, yes, we will wait to launch it until we have the full year results, and for the EUR 4 billion, well, we have to wait until the deal is closed, right?

Next question from Stefan Stalmann from Autonomous Research.

Two questions from my side. First one on TLTRO. As you said, it's going to be neutral now, value neutral, you could say. What are you going to plan to do with your balances? Are you planning to prepay? And just for illustration, if you were to repay all of your TLTRO, what would that do to your LCR ratio, please? And the second question on cost. You are disclosing cost growth at constant scope and FX of 5% after 9 months year-on-year. Could you roughly give us a sense of how much of that is coming from general inflationary pressure and how much is discretionary spending decisions?

Thank you, Stefan. If you look at -- for your last question, if I start with that on the costs, so indeed, what we have guided is that there is 2.7% of the increase, which is basically ForEx and 0.6% is the perimeter. And then you have 2.1%, which is stemming from the organic growth. And then you had inflation, and that inflation is basically compensated by the cost. So that's it. So half of the growth is coming from the change in perimeter, and intrinsically, the remaining 2% is stemming from, let's say, the growth that basically is at marginal cost.

Yes, and I guess you have already taken the scope effects and FX effects out of the 5%, right?

No, no, no. If you look at the cost evolution, if you look at it, there is 2.7% that is change and 0.6%, which is perimeter. That basically, if you look at the numbers, the overall cost evolution of the year is basically 6%. And if you look at constant scope and exchange rate, that becomes 2.8%. So there is 3.2% more than half that is stemming from the ForEx and the perimeter.

Right. I guess I was looking at the 5% for the operating divisions after 9 months. I did not include the Corporate Center. But I think that's fair enough.

Okay. And then on your question for the TLTRO. So yes, the TLTRO, it basically now becomes like any other financing. But to some extent, it is relatively easy in the sense that the collateral is there and what have you not. So yes, of course, it boost the LCR, but our LCR is in territory, which is fine. So we're just reflecting on how to optimize and add optimization. We'll let you know when it happens.

We have no more questions, Mr. Lars.

So anyway, I think in synthesis, you've all seen the results. We've clocked in a bottom line at plus 10%, which is better than the underlying economy, better than what we had in the plan, and it's basically also on the back of us anticipating and growing faster than our average given our diversified approach. So with this, I thank you very much, and I wish you a very good day. Bye-bye. Thanks.