 So, ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President and I are very pleased to welcome you to our press conference. We will now report on the outcome of today's meeting of the Governing Council, which was also attended by the Commission Vice President, Mr. Dombrowski. Based on our regular economic and monetary analysis, we today conducted a comprehensive assessment of the economic and inflation outlook and our monetary policy stance. As a result, the Governing Council took the following decisions in the pursuit of its price stability objective. As regards non-standard monetary policy measures, we will continue to make purchases under the asset purchase program at the current monthly pace of 80 billion euros until the end of March 2017. From April 2017, our net asset purchases are intended to continue at a monthly pace of 60 billion euros until the end of December 2017 or beyond if necessary and in any case until the Governing Council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim. If, in the meantime, the outlook becomes less favourable or if financial conditions become inconsistent with further progress towards a sustained adjustment of the path of inflation, the Governing Council intends to increase the program in terms of size and or duration. The net purchases will be made alongside reinvestments of the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the APP. To ensure the continued smooth implementation of the EuroSystems asset purchases, the Governing Council decided to adjust the parameters of the APP, the asset purchase program, as of January 2017 as follows. First, the maturity range of the public sector purchase program will be broadened by decreasing the minimum remaining maturity for eligible securities from two years to one year. Second, purchases of securities under the asset purchase program with a yield to maturity below the interest rate on the ECB's deposit facility will be permitted to the extent necessary. The key ECB interest rates were kept unchanged and we continue to expect them to remain at present or lower levels for an extended period of time and well past the horizon of our net asset purchases. Today, extension of the asset purchase program has been calibrated to preserve the very substantial degree of monetary accommodation necessary to secure a sustained convergence of inflation rates towards levels below but close to 2% over the medium term. Together with the sizable volume of past purchases and forthcoming reinvestments, it ensures that financial conditions in the Euro area will remain very favourable, which continues to be crucial to achieve our objective. In particular, the extension of our purchases over a long or horizon allows for a more sustained market presence and, therefore, a more lasting transmission of our stimulus measures. This calibration reflects the moderate but firming recovery of the Euro area economy and still subdued underlying inflationary pressures. The governing council will closely monitor the evolution of the outlook for price stability and, if warranted, to achieve its objective will act by using all the instruments available within its mandate. Let me now explain our assessment in greater detail, starting with the economic analysis. Real GDP in the Euro area increased by 0.3% quarter on quarter in the third quarter of 2016, following similar growth in the second quarter. Incoming data, notably survey results, point to a continuation of the growth trend in the fourth quarter of 2016. Looking further ahead, we expect the economic expansion to proceed at moderate but firming pace. The pass-through of our monetary policy measures to the real economy is supporting domestic demand and has facilitated the leveraging. Improvements in the corporate profitability and very favorable financing conditions continue to promote a recovery in investment. Moreover, sustained employment gains, which are also benefitting from past structural reforms, provide support for households, real disposable income and private consumption. At the same time, there are indications of a somewhat stronger global recovery. However, economic growth in the Euro area is expected to be dampened by a sluggish pace of implementation of structural reforms and remaining balance sheet adjustments in a number of sectors. This assessment is broadly reflected in the December 2016 Euro system staff macroeconomic projections for the Euro area, which foresee annual real GDP increasing by 1.7% in 2016 and 2017 and by 1.6% in 2018 and 2019. Compared with the September 2016 ECB staff macroeconomic projections, the outlook for real GDP growth is broadly unchanged. The risks surrounding the Euro area growth outlook remain tilted to the downside. According to Eurostar's flash estimate, Euro area annual HICP inflation in November 2016 was 0.6% up further from 0.5% in October and 0.4% in September. This reflected to a large extent an increase in annual energy inflation, while there are no signs yet of a convincing upward trend in underlying inflation. Looking ahead, on the basis of current oil futures prices, headline inflation rates are likely to pick up significantly further at the turn of the year, mainly owing to base effects in the annual rate of change of energy prices. Supported by our monetary policy measures, the expected economic recovery, and the corresponding gradual absorption of slack inflation rates should increase further in 2018 and 2019. This pattern is also reflected in the December 2016 Euro system staff macroeconomic projections for the Euro area, which foresee annual HICP inflation at 0.2% in 2016, 1.3% in 2017, 1.5% in 2018, and 1.7% in 2019. By comparison with the September 2016 ECB staff macroeconomic projections, the outlook for headline HICP inflation is broadly unchanged. Turning to the monetary analysis, broad money and three growth moderated in October 2016 with its annual rate of growth decreasing to 4.4% after 5.1% in September. As in previous months, annual growth in M3 was mainly supported by its most liquid components with the narrow monetary aggregate M1 expanding at an annual rate of 7.9% in October after 8.4% in September. Loan dynamics followed the path of gradual recovery observed since the beginning of 2014. The annual rate of change of loans to non-financial corporations increased to 2.1% in October 2016 from 2% in the previous month. The annual growth rate of loans to households remained at 1.8%. Although developments in bank credit continue to reflect the lagged relationship with the business cycle, credit risk, and the ongoing adjustment of financial and non-financial sector balance sheets, the monetary policy measures put in place since June 2014 are significantly supporting borrowing conditions for firms and households and thereby credit flows across the Euro area. To sum up, a cross-check of the outcome of the economic analysis with the signals coming from the monetary analysis confirmed the need to take today's monetary policy decisions so as to preserve the very substantial amount of monetary support that is necessary in order to secure a return of inflation rates towards levels that are below but close to 2% without undue delay. The monetary policy is focused on maintaining price stability over the medium term and its accommodative stance supports economic activity. As emphasized repeatedly by the governing council in order to reap the full benefits from our monetary policy measures, other policy areas must contribute much more decisively both at the national and at the European level. The implementation of structural reforms in particular needs to be substantially stepped up to reduce structural unemployment and boost potential output growth in the Euro area. Structural reforms are necessary in all Euro area countries. The focus should be on actions to raise productivity and improve the business environment including the provision of an adequate public infrastructure which are vital to increase investment and boost job creation. The enhancement of current investment initiatives progress on the Capital Markets Union and reforms that will improve the resolution of non-performing loans will also contribute positively to this objective. In an environment of accommodative monetary policy the swift and effective implementation of structural reforms will also make the Euro area more resilient to global shocks. Fiscal policies should also support the economic recovery while remaining in compliance with the fiscal rules of the European Union. Full and consistent implementation of the stability and growth pact over time and across countries remains crucial to ensure confidence in the fiscal framework. At the same time it is essential that all countries intensify efforts towards achieving a more growth friendly composition of fiscal policies. We are now at your disposal for questions. Mr Jones. So Draghi, two questions please. Could you tell us if any other options were presented in today's meeting and if so what they were and could you tell us please as well whether the decision today on the QE extension and the changes to the design were unanimous? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, the two options that have been presented were the ones that have been studied by the committees in the preceding months. One for so the option of continuing with 80 billion euros a month for six months and the other one is the one that received a very, very broad consensus by the governing council. Thank you. Mr Canepa. Francesco Canepa. Yes. So when you decided to buy bonds with the maturity of less than two years how do you plan to deal with criticism that that sees the ECB getting involved with government's short-term financing needs? And the other question regards the buying below the deposit rate. In the minutes you said, the chief economist I think said that any change would have to make economic sense. So what's the economic benefit of buying bonds that yield less than 40 basis points below zero? Thank you. Thank you. First of all let me say that what I said during the introductory statement but it does need some emphasis. The purchase of securities under the purchase probably the yield to maturity below the interest rate on the ECB deposit facility will be permitted to the extent necessary. So it's an option. It's not a necessity. And as a matter of fact the relevant committees will look in January and in the coming months when this could become a necessity. So it's more to sort of give an option for continuing a smooth implementation of the program than for any other reason. Now about the general involvement of the ECB with the financing needs of the governments is frankly there is any difference here. We operate on the secondary market as well. It's just nothing changes. We've changed the maturity but nothing else. Thank you. Mr. Speciale. Alessandro Speciale, Bloomberg News. Mr. President, first of all a question on the reduction of the pace of purchases from 80 to 60 billion per month. Could you tell us why you felt necessary to ensure this second option, this more sustained market presence? And so what was the rationale for this decision? And the second one is you said that I mean as you just said to the extent necessary it will be possible to purchase below the deposit rate. The fact that the committees still have to study this doesn't mean that this is not immediately an option and what may be the conditions that make it necessary under are there going to be caveats, are there going to be some sort of limitations in doing that and what sort of instructions would you give to the committees? Thank you very much. Thank you. Now on your first question, first let me say that we have to go back to March 2016 when we upsized our program from 60 to 80. And at that time the outlook for a returned, for a sustained return to our inflation objective was much darker. And deflation risks were not immaterial at that time. So at this point in time we basically judged that the outlook as far as the sustained return to our inflation objective is not very different from what it was at the beginning of the program when it was scaled to 60. And more specifically the risk of deflation has largely disappeared. However, uncertainty prevails. Uncertainty prevails everywhere. And we certainly see and assess the progress of the overall situation at the end of 2017. But since uncertainty prevails everywhere that's the reason for this sentence in the introductory statement that says if in the meantime the outlook becomes less favourable or if financing conditions become inconsistent with further progress towards a sustained adjustment of the path of inflation the governing council intends to increase the program in terms of size and or duration. Now this means two things. First of all the governing council is acting in a pragmatic and flexible way to cope with risks that may materialize in this period of time. Second, that there is no question about tapering. Tapering has not been discussed today. Now on the second point I have to refer to the committee's work on that point. As I said this is an option not a necessity and the committees will assess when it should become so. When and if it should become so. As you know the amounts of purchases and the maturities of purchases do depend on the current constellation of rates and as this changes so it changes the necessity to buy certain maturities rather than others. Thank you. Mr Phallus. Tom Phallus from the Wall Street Journal. Mr Draghi you said tapering hasn't been discussed today. How much longer do you think it will be until that discussion needs to be had in the governing council? How much pressure is there to hold that discussion on a possible exit? My second question is on Italy. There was obviously no vote this weekend. How vulnerable is the country and its banking sector to a slow down to a removal of the ECB stimulus measures in your view? Thanks. Thank you. On your first question you see the intention, the underlying narrative of our monetary policy decisions was exactly to maintain the extraordinary degree of monetary accommodation that we have in place. And to this extent without distorting price will silly continue to exert pressure on market prices to deliver exactly the degree of monetary accommodation that we want. The second purpose is to transmit a sense that the presence of the ECB on the markets will be there for a long time. So a sustained presence is also the message of today's decision. And that's why tapering was not discussed. On your second question you asked me about vulnerability. I think that the vulnerabilities that both the banking system and Italy have been there for a long time. And so they ought to be coped with. I'm confident the government knows what to do. And they will be dealt with. Mr. Trig? Mr. Trig, Market News International. Mr. President, you've underlined that the ECB can increase the volumes and duration of the program if developments change. Does that also mean, by contrast, if developments are better than expected, the ECB could slow purchases or cut the duration of the program? And if not, why not, given that the ECB always says that it's a data-driven institution? Thank you very much. You're welcome. But we haven't discussed that at all today. We seem to be fairly far away from any such high-class problem. Thank you. Mr. Hewing? Jack Hewing, New York Times. I wonder if I could go back to the word tapering again. Although you said that's not discussed, the markets are certainly taking it otherwise. And the analysts are using the word tapering. You can explain to us what's the difference between what you did today and what people generally consider to be tapering. Thank you. Well, I mean, the word has meanings, several meanings depending on who's using it. But the way one would look, I mean, the natural way to look at a word like that is to have a policy whereby purchases would gradually go to zero. And that's not been discussed. As a matter of fact, it's not even been on the table. Thank you. Mr. Konzi? Mr. Draghi, this is again about Italian banks. We know that today the supervision council is meeting and probably won't be able to avoid discussing the situation of Italian banks. So my question is, in your view, do you think Italian banks could be facilitating and facing their problems by being given more time right now? Or do you think the urgency of the matter is such that it must be dealt with very quickly? Thank you. Thank you. You know that on the basis of the so-called separation principle, I have to answer your question saying, ask the supervisory board for an answer. Thank you. Mr. Schröss? Thank you. Mark Schröss, Birdenzeitung. Two questions. The first one, another option to safeguard the smooth functioning of the QE program would have been to raise the issue and issue the limits. What was the reason not to do so? And the other one, very simple. The 1.7% in 2019, is that in line with close, below but close to 2%? Thank you. Well, the answer to the second question is not really. So we have to persist. And we know that there is gradual convergence to that objective. And so that's the answer to the second question. The answer to the first question is that it was actually, as you know, the committees looked at that as well. And there was an increase in awareness of the legal and institutional constraints that would make such a change difficult. And that's why it was the removal of the so-called the FR floor was preferred. Mr. Lacour? Mr. Lacour, thank you. Two questions, Mr. President. Maybe can you quantify how much inflation and growth will benefit in your Eurozone given the decisions of today? In other words, how many QE is embedded in these new projections? Can you say this for the coming years? And second question, inflation is expected to be well above zero in the coming years. And by the same time, ECB key interest rate will remain at zero. So we will have the situation of real interest rate well in negative. And that will be maybe difficult to explain and will trigger here a lot of criticism more in this country especially. How will you go along with this situation? Well, your first question is that we don't have, I don't have the estimates for that embody today's decisions in measuring, in sizing the impact on GDP growth and inflation. Until the last, so we have the impact of the past decisions which account for a cumulative 1.3% growth over the three-year horizon and 1.5% inflation over the three-year horizon. Now on your second question, certainly as inflation expectations, if inflation expectations will continue their recovery, that will mean falling real rates which on one hand will certainly have a powerful stimulative effect on the economy. On the other hand, it will also have an impact on the real return on savings. So we will assess the situation in the coming months and we see which one, what was the net balance of all these different effects. This is the situation, in a sense it's a situation that shows an improvement in the overall. But I should also say that in the meantime also yields on bonds are going up. And so it's not at all clear that in the end the real return on savings is actually going down. We have to see what happens on the nominal rate and the expectations of inflation. Mr. Malin? Jan Malin, Hannitz, but Mr. Draghi, my first question is on Trump effect actually. After the US election, interest rates in the US have gone up considerably and the dollar has depreciated against the euro. What does that mean for the ECB's monetary policy? Do you see the risk of abrupt interest rate increases and spillovers to the eurozone? And my second question is on the legal questions. Mr. Merch has recently said that the European Court of Justice has confirmed the legality of the ECB's monetary measures provided that the self-imposed boundaries are observed. Now you changed some of the self-imposed boundaries. Are you not fearing that this would again raise legal issues? Thank you. Thank you. The answer to the second question is no, because the self-imposed boundaries to which Mr. Merch was referring are not the self-imposed boundary which we have removed today. So different things. The answer to the first question is it's very difficult to assess what the effects of these big changes like the radically new administration in its look at the world in the United States or for this matter even Brexit. Or for this matter even the outcome of the Italian referendum a few days ago, all three events were expected to have major effects in the world. And in all three cases the markets proved the markets, the financial intermediaries proved much more resilient than people had expected them to be. So first of all we know one thing, markets were more resilient and this has probably many reasons, many causes, one of which is certainly the good work that regulators have done in the last seven, eight years to strengthen the intermediaries and the markets. But there are also other good reasons, an overall better macroeconomic policy context. But the point is that all these events, especially Brexit and the new administration in the United States, have effects that are by their very nature that are going to develop their full dimensions in the medium to long term. So we'll certainly see consequences of these changes in the medium to long term. Not necessarily as I was saying in the short term, but these consequences are very, very difficult to assess now. So it's very difficult to assess what is the medium long term consequence of possible change in the US administration economic policy. But I should stress the possible, because we are still in the very early stage. Mr. Merli? Alessandro Merli of Il sole venti quattro ore. You've alluded in the last answer and also last week in an interview to the fact that political uncertainty is high, you actually defined it dominant. After the Italian referendum, is this concern heightened for you beyond market response? I'm thinking in particular of the need which is stress repeatedly of reforms. The country certainly needs reforms and it's possible. It's probable that there will not be forthcoming in a country without a government and with possible elections in the several next few months. I mean, when I refer to that dominant political uncertainty, I was not saying something extravagant or difficult or unforeseen. Just look at the election calendar for the year to come. And so that is by itself a source of uncertainty. Look at the rest of the world. Look at what's happening with the emerging market economies. Look at what's happening also in some segments of the financial markets. So there is a big uncertainty much of which is political and whether we can do something about that or not is an open question. I think what the central banks can do is to keep a steady hand, namely continue with the monetary accommodation that is necessary to achieve their objective. That's what... Now, having said that, countries that need reforms have to undertake them regardless of what is the general political uncertainty. Because the best way for countries to cope with this uncertainty is actually to restore growth and employment and job creation. Mr Boindemann. Thank you. Mark Boindemann, NRC, Handelsblatt. Mr Draghi, you said that the Governing Council can increase the programme again in terms of size and duration if conditions would make that necessary. Does that mean that the monthly amount can again be raised from 60 to 80 billion? And a second question if I may, on the removal of the deposit rate floor. Critics say that this basically means for the central banks, the national central banks that do the purchases, that this means that they immediately incur an interest rate loss. Do you share that assessment? Thank you. Yeah. Now, the answer to the first question is yes. Yes, certainly. It can increase... It can go back to 80. As a matter of fact, this number was quartered, so it's a range of options, and we will see. That is... But the key message underlying this sentence if in the meantime the outlook becomes less favourable, the key message is to show that there is no tapering on site, to show that the ECB is going to stay in the markets, to show that it will continue to exert pressures on pressure, on market prices, though not... We don't want to distort them, of course. But that's the meaning of that. The second point is, yes, indeed, there is going to be a loss, but it's not... I mean, our mandate is to pursue price stability. It's not to maximise central bank's profits. Thank you. Mr. Perez? Mr. President, this is Claudio Perez from El País from Spain. The Eurogroup sat... Here. The Eurogroup has said clearly not to the plan of the European Commission on the stimulus of 0.5% of GDP. Do you have the feeling that you are going to one direction which is stimulus because of these uncertainties you have described it, and the ministers are choosing exactly the opposite direction, which is no stimulus in the fiscal side? Well, I mean, concerning the fiscal aspect, what we've said on and on, really, is that indeed, other policies, one of which is fiscal policy, should also complement the action of the monetary policy in order to reap its full effects. But we also put emphasis, all the times, on the composition of the budget in the sense of making it more growth-friendly, which basically means lower taxes, lower current government expenditures, higher investment expenditure, targeted to productivity-enhancing investments. As far as the size is concerned, it really depends on whether the countries have fiscal space or not. And we always stress the fact that fiscal policy should respect the stability and growth part. And we always use the wording as the anchor of stability or credibility in the euro area. And the reason for this is that, if you look, I mean, well-designed rules, if they are complied with, are essential for two reasons. They give credibility to the governments that comply with these rules. And even, perhaps more importantly, they increase trust between governments. And why is so important that this trust be there? It's very important because when we talk about further steps towards the deeper integration in our monetary union, these further steps are based on trust. And these further steps are necessary to complete our monetary union. But we can do so and, therefore, making a union stronger only if there is trust between governments. Mr. Mastro Buoni? Tony Mastro Buoni, la Repubblica. Mr. Draghi, you hinted at the terrible calendar of 2017 many elections, and we still don't know what will happen in Italy, but the government will come. The situation of the banks is very difficult. So do you think there are still some risks for the euro in the next months and next year? And the second question is, how would you respond to people from some countries that say that you are, in some way, biased, that you are helping, especially the countries in the southern Europe, including Italy with the QE and now the extension of the QE? Thank you. Thank you. Well, the answer to the second question is no, of course, I'm not biased. And I think we've given plenty of evidence that the policy of the ECBs, first of all, it's decided by the governing council. And we are there not as represented to our countries, me less than everybody else, of course, but also as we are there in our personal capacity and our mandate is not to ensure some sort of national objective but to ensure the price stability objective for the whole of the euro area. And that's what we have done. Our policies, incidentally, our policies are not very different from the policies that are being put in place by all the large central banks in the world. We are no exception. No, we don't, at this point in time, frankly, we don't see risk for the euro area. I think different countries have different vulnerabilities. As I was saying before, both the macroeconomic context is better than it was five years ago when we had contagion but also financial markets and financial intermediaries are stronger. And so these problems, though very important, though very urgent to be, and therefore they should be addressed with effectiveness and speed, remain contained within the individual countries. Now, having said that, since I mentioned before, the trust is one condition for our union to proceed to progress towards a more complete, as one would say, more perfect monetary union. There's another condition that's also essential and that's convergence. Countries need to converge and in order to converge, they have to undertake these structural reforms that would enhance convergence. And some of these reforms in some countries, each country has its own agenda for these reforms. So they are very, I mean, the fact that structural reforms and convergence are being pursued in various countries is important, not necessarily because it costs risks for the euro but because it strengthens our monetary union. Mr Daniels? Good afternoon. How would you counter the argument that the ECB intervention and monetary policy has in some ways stifled reform momentum in the eurozone? I mean, we've been discussing this for now a long time. Our view is different. Our view is actually that easy monetary conditions should help undertaking monetary reforms. And the reasoning is, there are several reasons for this. First of all, the structural reforms that have been undertaken in the euro area after the sovereign crisis were actually undertaken when interest rates were low, had already been low for a while. Second, we should ask ourselves what sort of structural reforms are, in a sense, related to the level of interest rates prevailing in the markets. And there are certainly some reforms that are related. The reforms that have to do mostly with budgetary needs take the pension reform. It's quite clear that if market conditions are overstressed and countries have or are about to lose market access unless they make their debt profile sustainable, in that case the level of interest rate certainly produces a pressure to change to reform in the direction of making debt more sustainable. But there are many other structural reforms equally, if not more important in the long run like reform of the educational system, reform of the judiciary, the reform of the electoral system, take the case of Italy, the reform of the constitution that have nothing to do with the level of interest rates. So even logically, there isn't such a tight link between the level of interest rates. Also, we have internal research, as a matter of fact, that shows that there is no such a link between the level of interest rates and therefore the degree of accommodation of our monetary policy and the willingness by governments to undertake the needed structural reforms. Mr. Barbera. Thank you, Mr. Barbera-Lastampa. Mr. Draghi, among the options that the Italian government is starting to solve the problem of the banking system, there is an European loan from the ESM. Could you tell us just in general, if you think this could be a good solution to solve those problems all these months? I must confess, I know very, very little about this ESM loan to Italy for the banking system. But let me just give you the article number three of the ESM says the following criteria and hierarchy of prior actions shall be met in order for a request for financial assistance for the purpose of recapitalizing financial institutions to be considered eligible. The beneficiary should demonstrate the existence of a lack of alternatives for recapitalizing the financial institutions concerned. This should first reveal an inability to meet capital shortfalls via private sector solutions and secondly, an inability of the beneficiary ESM member to recapitalize said institutions without incurring very adverse effects on its own financial stability and fiscal sustainability. Second, the financial institutions concerned should have a systemic relevance or post-series threat to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole and the beneficiary ESM member shall demonstrate an ability to reimburse the loan granted. And so on. I mean, I don't want to read the whole thing. It basically shows that it's a rather complex thing and it shows also that I know very little about that. Thank you. I'm sorry. Mr. Jakesh? Klaus Renner Jakesh at the German Television. Mr. President, I also have to refer to a speech your colleague Mr. Merch has held here in Frankfurt some weeks ago in which he has hinted that the possibility of tapering at least being discussed on today's Governing Council meeting. Now you say that it was not on the agenda and the account and the new measurements have not to be interpreted in such a way. Could you tell us please how we have to interpret these different signals coming out of your institution? Thank you. I can tell you what happened today. It was not discussed. Mr. Ten Bosch? Thank you. Gildenbosch, Financial Dagblad in Amsterdam. Mr. Draghi, you said that tapering was not discussed. It's not on the table. Does this mean that not one member of the council expresses opinion of being in favour of tapering? That's right. Exactly. Mr. Plickert? Mr. Draghi, again coming to the two options that you were presented at the meeting. One is six months with 80 billion and the other nine months with 60 billions. What were the arguments in favour of the second option? Why is it better to reduce the amount and to run the programme longer? Well, to some extent I've dwelt with these arguments before. We went back when we increased the size in March and we asked ourselves what were the conditions of the economy at that time? What were the prospects for a sustained return to our objective of inflation? What were the risks of potential deflation? And at that time we thought that raising to 80 would have been an answer to the concerns that we shared with the governing council head at that time. So in deciding new scale, the new size of 60, we simply went back. We just went through the same analysis account of which I've given in a sense during the introductory statement in various parts of it. And we also saw that the risks of deflation, the inflation distribution are much more skewed towards out of deflation. So that was the reason. The second reason is the length of time. And that's where we wanted to assure sustained presence in the economy, in the markets. We want to assure that the ECB would continue to exert pressures on market prices, though as I said we don't want to install them. And we want to assure that a reduction in size doesn't mean at all, as I said before, any tapering. And so that's the logic behind the choice of 60. But as I said, the program remains flexible and the flexibility is stated by the sentence that I read before starting if in the meantime the outlook becomes less favorable. Danilo Taino, Corriere della Sera. Looking to the future, President, what do you read in the rising price of oil? Is it important only as a statistical element or do you think it can have structural importance in inflation? Well, it's an important change after many years that oil prices have gone down to, I believe, an unprecedented extent. Now they're rising again. And the explanations are, in a sense, symmetric to what were the explanations for their downfall. Namely, better demand conditions, better supply conditions, and to some extent, I think significant extent, the re-establishment of some international agreements. There is no question that these higher prices will feed into higher headline inflation, though we have to see how this is going to be and as exactly the same considerations I remember was doing in the other direction two or three years ago. We have to see to what extent this is a one-off effect, to what extent will have a secondary effect and to what extent this will affect inflation excluding energy, which we are not seeing yet any effect on it. And when I said that there is no sign of convincing upward in the underlying inflation. And our final question goes to Ms Weisbach. Hi, Annette Weisbach from CNBC. Two questions for you. Why haven't you opted for a QE extension without an end date if you want to show continued presence in the markets? Was that a compromise among governing council members? And second question is another point was the scarcity of assets, not only for your program, but also for the markets in itself, for the repo market, for example. Are you confident that with the reduced amount of purchases now per month, those tensions in these markets like the repo market are lessened now? And I was hearing that you're also quizzing market participants about potentially creating mortgage-backed securities that could get a higher rating through the correlation effect and by that getting rid of the safe asset problem. Thank you. Thank you. On your first question, as a matter of fact, I mean, our program says it goes until the end of December 2017 or beyond, if necessary, and in any case, until the governing council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim. So it is, in a sense, open-ended. It's state contingent, we would say, rather than open-ended. Now, on the repo market, as you know, we've taken important decisions on the securities lending program and we decided that cash will be accepted as collateral for the PSPP securities lending program up to the limit of 50 billion. And details, as far as this is concerned, will be announced at 3.30 today. As far as the repo market is concerned, we are aware of the ongoing developments in the Euro-era repo market. We will continue monitoring the developments, but the PSPP securities lending framework is sufficiently robust to ensure a continued smooth functioning of the repo markets. So we are aware that our purchase program has contributed, among other relevant factors, to increase the repo rates used to obtain collateral of the best credit quality. But despite these price increases, repo market volumes continue to signal functioning repo markets and price discovery. So while we don't have any indication that higher prices for some specific types of collateral are hampering the transmission of our monetary policy, we have nevertheless discussed what ECB could do and I just announced one of the things that will be detailed in the 3.30 announcement. So and we've decided also to enhance our securities lending program. Thank you. Thank you very much.