 So, if I may start here, please stand up, mention your name and your institution. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. This is Emilio Gamarra from BMA Clearing in Spain. Well, first of all, thank you to all the panelists for your speeches. I'd like to ask, because probably in the recommendations of the paper of the ECB, it could be a very technical question. I'd like to know, or I'd like you to highlight or make a clarification about which is the curve that we are going to shift to move or to recalibrate from October the 2nd with the eight and a half basis point spread. We almost know that it's the zero rate curve, but some people are still thinking that we are going to move the par rate, the only par rate. So, I'd like to maybe to clarify you which is the right curve that we are going to move because probably some participants have still the doubt about the movement that we are going to do. Thank you. Thank you. So, let me start. So, basically, I think in the report we have been laying out kind of the group of curves, actually that is possible to be used for variation purposes. You see that being part of that report. But actually on that particular day what's happening is that Ionia is being recalibrated. So, from my point of view, the continuation of the use of your curves that currently points towards Ionia automatically moves towards a recalibrated Ionia afterwards. So, that is in place already. You have that. So, now at the very moment in time that you start to engage in doing Esther transactions. So, that's when for you now you need to actually just determine, well, what is the Esther curve that I'm going to be using to perform a variation for that particular group of products. And that's when you're basically going to have at minimum two curves. So, potentially. So, that will be linked as we all know. But those two curves will then be kind of relevant for the individual participant. So, but I think this is therefore this is more a stepped approach. So, the Ionia curve itself that you're currently using on the first day. It is kind of due to the recalibration. It is automatically being brought in line with the change that we are implementing here. Any other comments? Okay. Further questions? Yes, please. Over here. Thank you for your time explanation. I had one question about valuation. You talk about that some nonlinear instrument will be affected. But aren't all swap instruments nonlinear as of now? And that because if they are quite long, there is a real possibility that they're going to switch to fallback rate. So, if you have to switch then basically they are saying something about another rate, right? That's a good point in time. Yeah, we're not talking about a transition yet of let's say the floating rate option for a long-term interest rate swap. So, we haven't kind of touched upon that one. But interest rate swaps are all, let's say all derivatives are being affected by the change due to the discounting curve. So, due to kind of the way that collateralization of exposure from derivatives is being implemented through CSA contracts and the use of Ionia in these contracts as a price alignment interest as well as for the construction of the discounting curve. So, and that's why all of these derivatives are affected. I do totally agree with you. Whether this is all nonlinear, I'm not sure I did get that one. Because if you have just an ordinary swap contract, right? As of now, suppose you look at it 30 years in maturity. So, basically, it's your ribor six months, for example. So, what is actually, what you're going to be exchanging? You're going to be exchanging fixed rate against your ribor six months at a certain period. And there is a real possibility that at a certain point in time, which we don't know, some stochastic time, T star, is going to switch to alternative rate, which we don't know. Yes. So, basically, that makes it quite nonlinear to me, right? I'm not sure whether that's what we described as nonlinear, but surely something that we haven't been covering in here so far. That's for sure. So, I think that kind of has become more of a topic when we talk about the creation of a fallback solution for your ribor. But on the other hand, please keep in mind that we don't talk about the discontinuation of your ribor at the moment. So, basically what we'll be doing is we'll be recommending a fallback rate for your ribor. We're recommending your ribor to being discontinued in any shape or form. Let's keep that in mind. That's at least kind of current stance of the working group. Your ribor is going to continue. There will be a fallback. And that's as far as it goes for us at the moment. Yeah, okay. I'm sure where they answered your question. Maybe I will ask afterwards a little question. Okay. Okay. So, the question is over here. Second row. Your phone is coming. Hi. Jarrod Jacob from Park Fitzgerald. Question from Marcus on legal terminology. You'd said that the fallback for you, Eonia was ester plus a fixed 8.5 basis point spread. Is it not the case that the Eonia methodology is formally changing to ester plus an 8.5 fixed spread? So, the case around fallbacks is very different. Yes. Well, I guess the question is for me. The checker. Anyway, next week, the Eonia will change the methodology to become ester plus 8.5 basic points. And then, if you need to embed a fallback provision or a fallback rate in new Eonia contracts, which minimize any kind of value transfer at the cessation of Eonia, this fallback rate would be ester plus 8.5 basic points. From a legal standpoint, it's a different index, because one is Eonia and the other one is Eurostr. So, it's the same. And that's why, and also, we officially recommended, because in some, for example, in the ISDA, in the ISDA benchmark supplement, it includes as a fallback rate the rate officially nominated by a working group sponsored by a central bank. So, that's why we need, the working group needs to recommend any fallback rate, because this would help to apply in other master agreements, which the market is using. But the same is the same. Okay. We could take one final question up here in front. Paul Allen. I know this is a quick question, hopefully. You mentioned that when EON is actually discontinued entirely, discounting and collateral payments would go to just ester flat unless there's frictions. The friction you're talking about, is that just a large compensation payment for the movement of value, or what are the other things you were thinking of? It's the organization of that. So, you would have kind of all your agreements in place. So, first of all, with your CCPs, I think it's probably kind of easier to organize, as this is usually well standardized and well organized. But then you have a probably large amount of individual contracts with a large range of individual customers. Who would you have to engage with them? You would have to deal with that. So, therefore, changing that rate, that discounting or making that switch is probably just a more tedious effort. So, it's quite an organizational effort to go through all of that. And that's why we originally made that differentiation, basically saying we recommend a big bang for everything that is going by the central counterparty platforms. But at the same time, we said a phased approach might be required for everything that is bilateral, and that is due to the very nature of the individual contracts and how to renegotiate that. Thanks. Okay, I'm afraid we have to close this very first panel. So, and thanks very much to all the panelists. We will now have a coffee break for half an hour. So, we'll resume at 10 past 11. So, and I'm sure the panelists will be happy to answer more questions. Of course.