 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. We are pleased on our regular economic and monetary analysis. Today we conducted a thorough assessment of the outlook for inflation, the risks around in this outlook and our monetary policy stance. As a result, the Governing Council took the following decisions in pursuit of its price stability objective. First, the key ECB interest rates were kept unchanged and we continue to expect them to remain at their present levels for an extended period of time and well past the horizon of our net asset purchases. Second, as regards non-standard monetary policy measures, we will continue to make purchases under the asset purchase program at the current monthly pace of 60 billion euro until the end of December 2017. In January 2018, our net asset purchases are intended to continue at the monthly pace of 30 billion euro until the end of September 2018 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 the outlook becomes less favourable or if financial conditions become inconsistent with further progress towards a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation, we stand ready to increase the APP, the asset purchase program, in terms of size and or duration. Third, the euro system will reinvest the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the asset purchase program for an extended period of time after the end of its net asset purchases and in any case for as long as necessary. This will contribute both to favourable liquidity conditions and to an appropriate monetary policy stance. And fourth, we also decided to continue to conduct the main refinancing operations and three month longer term refinancing operations as fixed rate tender procedures with full allotment for as long as necessary and at least until the end of the last reserve maintenance period of 2019. Today's monetary policy decisions were taken to preserve the very favourable financing conditions that are still needed for a sustained return of inflation rates towards levels that are below but close to 2%. The recalibration of our asset purchases reflects growing confidence in the gradual convergence of inflation rates towards our inflation aim on account of the increasingly robust and broad-based economic expansion, an uptake in measures of underlying inflation and the continued effective pass-through of our policy measures to the financing conditions of the real economy. At the same time, domestic price pressures are still muted overall and the economic outlook and the path of inflation remain conditional on continued support from monetary policy. Therefore, an ample degree of monetary stimulus remains necessary for underlying inflation pressures to continue to build up and support headline inflation developments over the medium term. This continued monetary support is provided by the additional net asset purchases, by the sizable stock of acquired assets and the forthcoming reinvestments, and by our forward guidance on interest rates. Let me now explain our assessment in greater detail, starting with economic analysis. The economic expansion in the Euro area continues to be solid and broad-based. Real GDP increased by 0.7% quarter on quarter in the second quarter of 2017 after 0.6% in the first quarter. The latest data and survey results point to unabated growth momentum in the second half of this year. Our monetary policy measures have facilitated the deleveraging process and continue to support domestic demand. Net consumption is underpinned by rising employment, which is also benefiting from past labor market reforms and by increasing household wealth. The upswing in business investment continues to benefit from very favorable financing conditions and improvements in corporate profitability. Innovation investment has also strengthened. In addition, the broad-based global recovery is supporting Euro area exports. Risks surrounding Euro area growth outlook remain broadly balanced. On the one hand, the strong cyclical momentum, as evidenced in recent developments in sentiment indicators, could lead to further positive growth surprises. On the other hand, downside risks continue to relate primarily to global factors and developments in foreign exchange markets. Euro area annual HICP inflation remained unchanged at 1.5% in September. Looking ahead on the basis of current futures prices for oil, annual rates of headline inflation are likely to temporarily decline towards the turn of the year, mainly reflecting base effects in energy prices. At the same time, measures of underlying inflation have ticked up moderately since early 2017, but have yet to show more convincing signs of a sustained upward trend. Wage growth has increased somewhat, but domestic cost pressures still remain subdued overall. Online inflation in the Euro area is expected to continue to rise gradually over the medium term, supported by our monetary policy measures, the continued economic expansion, the corresponding gradual absorption of economic slack, and rising wage growth. According to the monetary analysis, broad money M3 continued to expand at a robust pace, with an annual rate of growth of 5.1% in September 2017 after 5% in August. As in previous months, annual growth in M3 was mainly supported by its most liquid components, with a narrow monetary aggregate M1 expanding at an annual rate of 9.7% in September 2017 up from 9.5% in August. The recovery in the growth of loans to the private sector observed since the beginning of 2014 is proceeding. The annual growth rate of loans to non-financial corporations increased to 2.5% in September 2017 after 2.4% in August, while the annual growth rate of loans to households remained stable at 2.7%. The Euro Area Bank Landing Survey for the third quarter of 2017 indicates that net loan demand has continued to increase for all loan categories. Credit standards have further eased for loans to households, while they remained broadly unchanged for loans to enterprises. Next overall terms and conditions on new loans have continued to ease for all categories of loans. The pass-through of the monetary policy measures put in place since June 2014 continues to significantly support borrowing conditions for firms and households, access to financing, notably for small and medium-sized enterprises, and 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 recalibrate the policy instruments to ensure the degree of monetary accommodation necessary to secure a sustained return of inflation rates towards levels that are below but close to 2%. In order to rip the full benefits from our monetary policy measures, other policy areas must contribute decisively to strengthening the longer-term growth potential and reducing vulnerabilities. The implementation of structural reforms in all Euro-era countries needs to be substantially stepped up to increase resilience, reduce structural unemployment, and boost Euro-area productivity and growth potential. Regarding fiscal policies, all countries would benefit from intensifying the efforts towards achieving a more growth-friendly composition of public finances. A full, transparent and consistent implementation of the stability and growth pact and of the macroeconomic imbalance procedure over time and across countries remains essential to increase the resilience of the Euro-area economy. Strengthening economic and monetary union remains a priority. The Governing Council welcomes the ongoing discussions on further enhancing the institutional architecture of our economic and monetary union. Now, we are now at your disposal for questions. Mr. Canepa? Francesco Canepa, Reuters. The first question is about the composition. Did you discuss at the Governing Council meeting the composition of the APP starting from January, so the proportions of the different components? The second question is about the alternative scenarios. What alternative scenarios did you discuss apart from the one that finally made the cut? Thank you. No, we didn't discuss composition. There will be a press release, press communique at 3.30, developing transparency and detailing more about how the asset purchase program will evolve in 2017, but we didn't discuss really the composition. The only thing that I can say about that is that we will continue buying sizeable quantities of corporate bonds in the program, and then you get the rest, yeah. Well, I can anticipate some of the things you're going to see shortly. So as of January 2018, the Euro system will publish exactly the monthly redemption amounts for each component of the APP for the Euro system as a whole for the following rolling 12-month period. So the Euro system, as you know, conducts the reinvestments in a flexible and timely manner in the month they fold due, or in the subsequent two months if needed. Therefore, net purchases per jurisdiction may fluctuate all into the timing of these reinvestments. Reinvestments will take place in the same jurisdiction as principal redemptions with the aim to minimize deviations from the capital key. So you'll get the press release shortly after the press conference. Clearly, the press release will also devote some space to communicate in a transparent way how this reinvestment, which is becoming more and more important, of course, is going to be carried out. We actually didn't discuss alternative scenarios. The discussion was, let me say this, the atmosphere was pretty positive. All the governing council members in their interventions emphasized the better conditions, the growth momentum, as I just said, unabated growth momentum, and the improving labor market conditions, they stressed how this number, almost 7 million jobs in the last four years, is actually continues to increase. The labor market unemployment goes down, and both private consumption and private investment, which is also remarkable because for a long time we haven't seen any significant upward trend in investment, is actually picking up. And they emphasized how the earning capacity of the households is increasing, so the real disposable income is actually increasing, because mostly because of gains coming from greater employment, and how households' wealth is increasing. And this also being supported, of course, by our monetary policy. So on inflation, of course, this positive picture on the growth side is on inflation is different, because inflation is still not at our objective. We foresee 1.5 this year, 1.2 next year, as I said, I think last time too, we foresee a v-shaped profile of inflation, mostly due to base price effects of the oil, of energy. And then 1.5 the year after. So all this in the end converged on the scenario that I've just presented. Of course, there were some difference of views on some aspects of this, but the scenario that was discussed this morning was the one I just mentioned. Alessandro Speciale, Bloomberg News. Mr. President, on the new guidance that you provide on reinvestment, that they will continue for an extended period of time and for as long as necessary, could you explain a bit more of what you mean as long as necessary, and how this guidance interacts with the one on rates? Is there a sequence or are they for the same period of time, more or less? And a second question is on the guidance instead on QE. You said you're still ready to expand in size and duration the program if necessary. Is it still possible to expand in size? I mean, do you still have room to expand the program, or do you foresee that there could be scarcity problems going ahead? In other words, how credible is this commitment to expand the size of QE if necessary? Thank you. Thank you. Now, the guidance on reinvestment is not related to rates. The sequence stays what it is. Namely, the interest rates will stay at the remain of the present, are expected to remain at their present levels for an extended period of time and well past the horizon of our net asset purchases, net asset purchases. However, as we move forward, not only this year, but also in the previous years, the amounts that we purchased, the stock has become more and more important. And this year, as we continue asset purchases, it will keep on increasing. So, the commitment that the Euro system has taken today is that it will reinvest the principal payments for maturing securities purchased under the APP for an extended period of time after the end of its net asset purchases. And in any case, as long as necessary. So, there isn't any specific link with interest rates. So, no, there is no link here. Now, of course, as I said, I want to stress the importance of reinvestment. I'll never forget that in December 2015, in one of my press, Euro Press periodic press conferences like this, we announced series of measures and we also said, look, we are going to reinvest this. And basically, there was no reaction. Not at all, not only that, but it was actually considered to be totally marginal. And in fact, there were many sort of wrong estimates of what these potential reinvestments might be. Now, since then, we bought a lot of bonds. So, this stock now is sizeable and has become an important component of our, as we say here, this continued monetary support is provided by the additional net asset purchases by three elements. The sizable stock of acquired assets and the forthcoming reinvestments. So, the stock and the reinvestments and by our forward guidance on interest rates. So, the three elements interact, act together. Now, on the flexibility, I think, on the credibility on the potential constraints, I think you've been asking, not you, you've been asking this question, will you make it since the very beginning of the QE program, at least the regular intervals, and each time we gave plenty of evidence that both our design is flexible enough to cope with the potential limits and we gave plenty of evidence that the governing council is committed to that. We discussed, we didn't discuss parameters or limits anything today. Ms Weisbach? Madam Weisbach, CBC. I'd have a question also on reinvestments. So, just looking at next year, come September, and the official program might end, I say might, would reinvestments actually make up from the volume side for the normal QE? So, question is, in volumes, how big are reinvestments? I mean, you must have calculated that. But you will get much information in the press release, unless the vice president has a number on that. The reinvestments will be carried out in a flexible way and the modalities of their investment are going to be described in this first press release. Let me adjust one other thing. We'll continue buying these, by the way, according to the present conditions until December. So, as far as any clarification is concerned about the future, we have time until, I would say, December or even earlier. Given the concern in the markets that there are not a lot of bonds left if you come to an end in September, so how credible do you think such a pledge might be going forward, like to have a very flexible extension potentially to QE? No, that's another question. That's the same question as before. So, one thing is our investment, and that is going to be massive, of course. Please, I want to say something on that. No, you will have the numbers, because we announced precisely at half past three, that we will start disclosing the pattern and amounts of reinvestment per month for the following 12 months. So, you will have all those numbers, which are quite sizable per month. I think on average we are talking about many billions per month on average. There are big differences from month to month, because it depends on the dates of when the bonds reach maturity. But of course reinvestment is then sizable, say like 10 billion per month, but it's just to restore the amount of the stock and the amount of the stock in itself produces an effect, of course, on markets, because we are talking about asset markets where the stock is always potentially in play, so the stock is also important for the transmission of monetary policy. Let me just make one point. The press community will not contain a number at 3.30. No, the disclosure will follow. So it's going to be carried out in a way I kind of described before, in a flexible way, and you will get more information in the press community. Now, on the other question, it's the same as before. See, so far you, as I said, all of you have been asking this question on and on, and basically our program is flexible enough that we can adjust. It's size we can adjust, we can carry it through smoothly, and that's been the evidence we've given until now, and the governing council is committed to that. Now, this time, of course, we are also going to have the reinvestments of the existing, of the maturing securities, and we still have our forward guidance. So in terms of our capacity to achieve or to have a monetary policy stance which will support the sustained inflation objective, self-sustained inflation objective, we are well placed. Ms. Jones? Claire Jones, Financial Times. First question, you seem to have emphasised a lot in recent weeks, the forward guidance on interest rates that rates will remain on hold well past the horizon of QE. Would you care to maybe say a little bit more about what is meant by well past? We now have some in markets predicting the first hike is going to be in 2020, so is that right, or would you say 2019 is a more reasonable estimate? For my second question, the Bank for International Settlements has been advanced in the argument that national central banks now have far less control over inflation because wage setting goes more to global and technological factors than it does domestic demand. Would you accept that argument, and if so, how do you adapt to that? Thank you. Thank you. The well past is a concept that is such that it should anchor short-term interest rate expectations in a way that is supportive the achievement of our inflation aim, namely a self-sustained, durable convergence of inflation to our objective of an inflation rate which is below but close to 2%. As far as the second question is concerned, I think I wouldn't rule that out. I wouldn't rule the fact that there are international global factors underlying the inflation development. We all know about the global value chain. We all know the delocalization of certain production centers and more generally the globalization and the different retail networks that are operating today. But our view and our policy is designed and based on a view that looks at the output gap and looks at the unemployment rate defined in various ways. Of course, we are now looking at the broad definition of unemployment and looks at the factors that will cause an increase in inflation as the unemployment rate will decrease and as the output gap will shrink. So our attention today is really more on the factors that are close to us. In other words, there may be global factors but we can do anything about that but we can do a lot about domestic factors. First and foremost is the speed of response of nominal wages to the closing output gap. And that's where our monetary policy becomes essential and that's what our monetary policy has in a sense contributed to create more than 7 million jobs in four years. Mr. Cobb. Good afternoon, Mr. President. Eric Cobb, Live Squawk News. A recent ECB statement seemed to indicate an increased focus on the role of the market. With a reduction plan set to take effect in fewer than 70 days, how is the ECB paved the way for today's announcement through its communications to the public? That's my first question. My second is there's a lot of different views inside the governing council at least according to what some of the people say publicly. Was the governing council unanimous today in its decision with regards to the size and longevity of the plan? As far as the first question is concerned, my understanding, of course I'm with you now, but my understanding is that market reaction was pretty muted to our policy announcement in spite of the fact that it's a policy announcement of a certain importance which seems to say that our communication to the market has been pretty effective. Also we are going to have a communication conference in two weeks time so you're cordially invited to participate there and it's jointly organized with the Federal Reserve. It's going to be here in Frankfurt and I'm pretty sure there will be many interesting insights about communication there. Now on the second point, no, it was not unanimous. It was there were different viewpoints. I would characterize the discussion as ranging between consensus, broad consensus on several issues and large majority on other issues more precisely. Well, first of all, let me step back. I've said many several times that the present situation is a situation that does call for confidence that we will be able to reach our objective. After all, the overall economy, the growth rate, unemployment, the labor market, what I've listed before are all positive indications that the survey data as well show an increase in momentum are all positive indications that we are moving towards a shrinking output gap and an improving labor market which eventually will produce higher nominal wage growth and therefore higher inflation. But this confidence is also tempered by the fact that we know that all this process still relies very much on our monetary policy support. So it's not self sustained yet. And therefore we must be patient and we must be persistent. And basically the discussion today was reflecting different degrees of confidence or of patience, persistence and prudence. So, but excuse me, by and large there wasn't much of a disagreement about the flows or other parts of the program. There were different views about whether it should have an end date being announced or not. But again, the large, and here that's the area where it's a large majority and not consensus, the large majority of the government council members preferred to keep it open-ended. Does a new ACB, European Central Bank Proposal, involve greater provisions for the devaluation of an NPL, no performing loan credits? Doesn't this, against with the accommodative monetary policy and against the startup phase of economy of some countries and the second question, excuse me for direct question, is it true that the Central Bank has a budget expansion ceiling of 2,500 billion? Thank you. Thank you. I will give the floor to the vice president for the first questions. On both questions if you want. No, regarding the first question, let me recall what was the decision that was announced. It's a decision about new loans, new flows of loans and potentially new NPLs that would be formed. And there is then a target for the formation of provisions when new NPLs would emerge so that the formation of provisions would have to go up to 100% of the exposures during two years in the case of the exposures are not secured by any collateral and seven years if they are secured by collateral. So it's this decision that was taken and so it means of course that with a stronger economy and better management of credit risk the levels of NPLs for new loans should be way below what they were during the crisis of course. So we are talking about a total different reality. And the second thing is that at the same time next year enters into force the International Financial Reporting Standard 9 which changes completely the calculation of impairment costs and provisions meaning that from January next year mandatory in accounting terms any new financial asset say the loan that goes into the books of the bank already has to calculate the expected loss during the next 12 months. So there will be some provision charge for any new loan as a result and if after that recognition moment there is some aggravation of the prospect of that asset not performing well then the accounting rules, the new accounting rules impose that the expected loss for the whole life of the asset has to be front loaded and immediately recognized as a cost. So these accounting rules reinforce very much the treatment of new NPLs so go in the same direction and can be meaningful because indeed as I said may lead to a full recognition of losses for the whole life of the asset. So which means that the new rule also the new target for the treatment of NPLs can be more or less already accommodated by what will be the imposition of the new accounting rules. So the thing is not adding perhaps too much to what the IFRS 9 would impose. So which means that the targets as they were defined are important but are at the same time reasonable and in complement with the change in the accounting rules. So that's important to ensure that from now the banks are careful enough in managing credit risk so that there is no further undue accumulation of NPLs. Then there was also the announcement that we are now looking about the stocks but nothing has been decided about that yet and we are looking of course very careful because it's different to deal with presumably the new NPLs and deal with targets for the whole stock. Final comment, the targets that were then defined will the implementation and the compliance with these targets will be subject also to a supervisory dialogue. The banks will have to comply or explain and they can explain that they have done the utmost to comply and could not do it for attendable reasons. So it's in the context of a supervisory dialogue that these new targets will be applied in order to contain for the future this problem of NPLs so that we don't have again an accumulation that creates as we now are seeing problems to the profitability of banks. I'm sorry, I didn't understand your second question. You talked about seeding, what did you mean? Oh, no, no, the answer is no. Second try to Mr. Malin, over there in the middle. Jan Malin, thanks. Mr. President, in the U.S. the Fed has opted for a gradual winddown of the purchases and now the U.S. and the ECB have taken a different approach. Why? And my second question today's decision comes at a time where the Fed has already raised rates and the Bank of England might raise rates soon. So do you think the global monetary cycle is turning now? Thank you. Thank you. The monetary policies of different jurisdictions reflect the different positions they are in achieving their objectives and the different positions the economies have in the business cycle. As such, the U.S. recovery is way more advanced than ours and the inflation developments, because we are concerned about price stability, are way behind. That justifies the difference in monetary policy stance. Our decisions today are consistent with the feedback rule we've been having all throughout. When the general conditions improve and we see that our inflation objective is closer, we've downside as the purchases in the past or we have upsized them in the past as well. And this is very much following the same logic. On one hand, it does reflect an increasing degree of confidence in our capacity to reach a self-sustained inflation objective. On the other, it takes stock of the fact that we are not there yet. As a matter of fact, in headline inflation, if anything will decline in the coming months and our annual projections that I mentioned a moment ago are for 1.5 this year, 1.2 next year, and 1.5 again the year after. So we aren't there yet. We are not there yet. And that explains the difference in our stances, basically. Mr. Therese. Hi, this is Claudio Pérez from our base. The Catalan government sent some emails to the ECB and apparently a letter to you. Okay, but they say that the political instability in Spain will have an impact in the financial stability in Spain and in the Eurozone as a whole. And in fact, we will have seen two banks moving its headquarters and some impact in the deposits. My question is, is political uncertainty in Catalonia now a risk for financial stability in Spain and in the Euro area as a whole? You know, it's very, very difficult to comment about developments that change every day. So it's just very difficult. Of course, we are following what's happening. The importance of what's happening is significant. To conclude now that there would be financial stability risks would be premature. We have to see what's going to happen. But rest assured, we look at that with great attention. Mr. Schroes. Thank you, Mark Schroes, person's item. In the past, you've always stressed when you were buying 80 billion or 60 billion that there will be no abrupt end to the purchases in order to avoid cliff effects. Now, given the new amount of 30 billion, is that still valid? Will there be in any case a phasing out of the purchases or from that level would it be possible to stop them immediately from one month to the other? And the second one, you've also stressed the sequencing between net purchases and interest rate hikes. Is there also such a sequencing between interest rate hikes and balance sheet reduction? For example, the Fed in the U.S. always argued that it would only start reducing its balance sheets once the interest rate normalization was well underway. Is that in pattern you would also follow? Thank you. Thank you. Well, the answer to the second question is we really know. We haven't discussed it. We haven't discussed it at all. And to the first question, I said before that the decision today is for an open-ended program. And I may add, certainly it's not going to stop suddenly. It's not going to stop suddenly. It's never been our view that things should stop suddenly. And so, but it's the open-ended and the large majority of the governing council expressed its preference for keeping it open-ended. And this is because, basically, for a variety of reasons, one, of course, is to reaffirm the steadfast commitment of the governing council to pursue the price stability objective. But also it's due to the fact that there is still a large amount of uncertainty and therefore prudence has inspired many governors to opt for this possibility. So it's basically that's what we decided. Oh, that's right. Well, sorry, you? No, I'm saying the second question. We do have a sequence which is defined and reaffirmed today. No, but the question here was, the sequence about net asset purchases is defined today. The sequence, the new sequence you are pointing at was actually the same question I have received before. There isn't any sequence between the balance sheet, the stock, and the interest rates. We've not discussed that. Mr. Melli? Alessandro Melli with Sole 24 Lora. You've reiterated the well-past, the expression well-past in terms of your sequencing. If I go back again to the example of the Fed, the Fed took 15 months before the raise rates after they stopped their purchases. Is that the sort of timeframe that you have in mind? I mean, of course, you don't like to be compared with the Fed from your previous answers, but the situation may be different. But is that the sort of timeframe that we're thinking of, or is it six months or 12 months? And another point is, were there governors or members of the council that were not as confident as you are about the convergence to the objective? No, as far as the second question is concerned, we're really talking about nuances. The general picture is a picture of a part of the world which is doing pretty well. And growth is growing, and momentum is also growing. The labor market and everything is doing, I mean, we are. I think it's, I can't remember how many quarters of consecutive growth, 17, I believe. And now it's 0.7% growth, as I just mentioned, which is was higher than the 0.6 that was expected. So at the same time, we don't see yet an encouraging sign neither in nominal wage growth nor in underlying inflation. Although one has said underlying inflation is higher than it was at historical trough at the year-end last year. But it's still quite far from any historical average. So it was basically most, as I said, the large majority, if not consensus, was in the end for a solution for a decision which was prudent. The bottom line is prudent, which was both confident but also patient and persistent. Now, the time frame, I think I said it before, we don't have a fixed time frame as we, when we define a medium term concept, it's not a fixed time frame. It really depends on how we are approaching to the achievement of our objective or price stability. And I think comparisons with other jurisdictions are not really appropriate because of, in a sense, what I said before, are, first of all, institutional differences but also different positions in the business cycle, different formations, price formation mechanisms, different labor markets, different speeds of response. So it's, in a sense, our experience with monetary policy has been quite different from what the Fed has done until now. Yanitya, Frankfurt-Argemeine Sonntagszeiten, thank you. The statement says, if the outlook becomes less favorable and I was wondering what if becomes more favorable, would you be willing to decrease the APP in terms of size and or duration? Thank you. Well, this is today's decision. And as up to, this is taken on the base of information we have today, and it's a commitment to undertake these purchases and to have the reinvestment of the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the APP for an extended period of time after the end of its net asset purchases, in any case, for as long as necessary. Then we have the full allotment, the longer-term refinancing operations at fixed rate tender procedures with full allotment. And then we have the forward guidance of interest rates. And this is based on the present information set. This is our commitment. We don't foresee changes now. Mr. Fedas. Thank you, Tom Fedas of the Wall Street Journal. I had a question on the bond scarcity issue. I think you mentioned last month that there might be fresh decisions that will be delayed until December. Is that something that, on the bond scarcity, is that one of the decisions that might be delayed until December that you mentioned last month? Or is that something that the ECB is likely to decide to change over the parameters of QE over the coming months? You mentioned that keeping QE open-ended was to reaffirm your commitment. Wouldn't that also be a... Wouldn't enlarging the parameters of QE also have that effect? The second question was on the full allotment decision. I wondered what is the significance of that? Is there any read across to interest rates? Thank you. Now, the answer to the second question is no. No. It's simply the part of the monetary policy decisions taken today. The decision to ensure adequate liquidity. And so we don't have any relationship between that and the forward guidance of interest rates. On the first, just let me answer, saying that there were two issues that were not discussed today. Well, probably many others, but as far as relevant to our today's decisions, two. One was parameters change, and the other was the sequence. Mr. Ewing? Jack Ewing, New York Times. Some analysts have talked about whether there would be some risks that would be exposed as you start to reduce your quantitative easing. In other words, perhaps asset prices that have gotten too high or companies that have gotten used to low interest rates would have trouble with higher interest rates. I just wonder if that's something you've looked at and whether it's something you're concerned about. Thank you. Well, it's certainly something we are looking at. We are not concerned about that because we, as I said before, will continue, and the press community will have words to this extent, will continue purchasing ample quantities of corporate bonds. So we certainly monitor that development like we do on other developments in various markets, and anything special that one would flag about that. And the final question goes to Mr. Stolf. Back on December, you announced the reduction of the QE, but you insisted it shouldn't be called tapering. Sorry, back on December, last December, you announced a reduction of the QE program, but you insisted on not be called tapering. After this new recalibration, can we assume that the ECB is now tapering with that word? And one more question. Has the ECB bought more Spanish debt than usual in order to contain the recent volatility? Thank you. So the answer to the first question is no. No, as a matter of fact, there was also another thing that's not discussed. We discussed whether it was proper having open-ended or closed-end. As I said, few members would rather have a closed end date or an announcement or some signal that we would go towards debt, but then the large majority of the council preferred to have it open-ended. But there was another thing we didn't discuss, tapering. I don't think this word had been pronounced if I'm not mistaken. In any event, it was not discussed. And so this is not tapering. It's just a down size. As I said before, it's consistent with our feedback rule which we've been using all throughout. Now, the second question, the answer is no because our mandate is price stability and not what's happening in different countries. Thank you very much.