 So, next we head to Brazil. Maybe we can find a little ray of hope there somehow. I think you may, if you look carefully. If you look carefully. Let's go ahead. Well, in recent years Brazil has been the front page of the Economist, the Christ and Rio flying like a rocket, and then on a snubber issue, that same rocket losing its momentum and falling. So, what happened between both issues? And what was actually the mistake behind the Economist's analysis? I dare to say so. Brazil, in the beginning of the first Lula government, that is 2002, was in a very bad fiscal situation. And Lula used his capital to fix that situation. But that was not enough. Brazil benefited enormously from a commodity surge, a surge on prices. And, as we say in Brazil, we had a sea for an admiral, an admiral sea. Perfect wind, perfect light, everything was perfect. And for many years we indulged ourselves into many necessary justifiable social policies, but that were not so affordable in the long run. Not only that, we insisted on giving power to corporations, meaning the judiciary, people in state-owned enterprises, and all of that meant one thing, potential deficit was growing. In the beginning, that didn't affect the rate of investments. But after a while, especially after 2008, 2010, 2008 was not bad in Brazil, 2009 the GDP had a fall, 2010 it was an extraordinary year, but composed with 2009, it just meant that we were growing at 3.5%. During all that period we were growing at 2% more than Europe per year. Then, with the Dilma government, we started to have a lot of Keynesianness, but they didn't study Keynes correctly. And they started to intervene in the economy. First intervention, try to change the electricity prices, try to control everything. That didn't work. That created havoc and the rate of investments started bit by bit falling. At the same time, we had a central bank dominated by people that were hawks, I would say, that had a very strong incentive to create a reputation against fighting inflation when the deficit was growing. So, instead of focusing on the deficit, we increased the deficit by paying more interest. Well, public debt, which was around 30-something of GDP, is now at around 80%. Still manageable. By the way, we have better public finances than the US. We don't have a US Navy, therefore, we are not international reserve currency. But if we had, if you lend us your Navy, we will be the international currency. So, the disaster manifested itself at full force after the beginning of the second term for Dilma Housseff. And it was very fast. GDP started falling, the rate of investments fell enormously. There was a lack of trust and Dilma was actually impeached after two years of her second term for disobeying the fiscal laws. Something that I've never heard happen in Europe or the US. Merkel was judged by the Supreme Court in Germany, the second tier of the Supreme Court in Germany, for something similar to what Dilma did when she saved the German banks from Greece's disaster. But Dilma was judged by Congress and she lost her position. The vice president entered as our constitution mandates and immediately he started a series of reforms. Those reforms, the most important of which would have been the change in social security, were stalled after the accusations that he was involved in a corruption scandal. He went to meet the businessman in the garage of the presidential palace and from that moment on Brazil lost governance. With the election of a new president, we started a new period and we went for recovering for work on social reform and we are almost there. Thanks to a good interaction between the president and Congress. Congress in Brazil, and this is ignored by many outside, is very strong right now. It is very powerful. The president has, there was a law concerning the abuse of power from magistrates, from judges, enacted by the Congress. And the president vetoed 45 items. 20, 33 of those items, the veto was cancelled by Congress. So power is divided and this is very important because we belong to the average Latin American class that started their independence drinking from the French Enlightenment. So as in France, we had our candidates to be Napoleon's, to be Napoleon's a third, to be Thierre, to be Clemenceau's, to be de Gaulle's. We always have this demand for a strong man. And of course, Britain did have better credit at the time of Waterloo and could mobilize more people because the decision on the debt was taken by Parliament. This is a deep and profound move that is happening now in Brazil and for investors this is extremely important. Next year, the budget is going to be mandatory. Something that foreigners never guess is that we don't have a mandatory budget. The budget, if I say in the budget up to this year, if I say I'm going to spend $100 billion in education, if I decide I'm the president, I decide to spend 50, it's okay. Of course, the policy that I would develop with 100 billion is different from the policy that I would develop with 50 billion. So the president has to remain this power and this power has been reduced. So don't expect Brazil to fix everything at once, but we are moving into the right direction. Global income has grown 1.7% on average in real 4% in the last year up to June. And this is a good sign. We expect better growth next year. It will take us three, four years to recover full growth, but it is possible provided we continue to stress on reforms. Thank you, Carlos.