 Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President and I are very pleased to welcome you to our press conference. We'll now report on the outcome of today's meeting of the Governing Council. Based on our regular economic and monetary analysis, we decided to keep the key ECB interest rates unchanged. 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. Regarding non-standard monetary policy measures, we confirm that the monthly asset purchases of 80 billion euros are intended to run until the end of March 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. The information that has become available since our meeting in early September confirms a continued moderate but steady recovery of the euro area economy and a gradual rise in inflation in line with our previous expectations. The euro area economy has continued to show resilience to the adverse effects of global economic and political uncertainty aided by our comprehensive monetary policy measures which ensure very favorable financing conditions for firms and households. Overall however, the baseline scenario remains subject to downside risks. Looking ahead, we remain committed to preserving the very substantial degree of monetary accommodation which is necessary to secure a sustained convergence of inflation towards levels below but close to 2% over the medium term. To that end, we will continue to act, if warranted, by using all the instruments available within our mandate. In December, the Governing Council's assessment will benefit from the new staff macroeconomic projections extending through to 2019 and from the work of the euro system committees on the options to ensure the smooth implementation of our purchase program until March 2017 or beyond if necessary. 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 second quarter of 2016 after 0.5% in the first quarter. The latest data and survey results point to continued growth in the third quarter of 2016 at around the same pace as in the second quarter. Looking further ahead, we expect the economic expansion to proceed at a moderate but steady pace. Domestic demand should be supported by the pass-through of our monetary policy measures to the real economy. Favorable financing conditions and improvements in corporate profitability continue to promote a recovery in investment. Moreover, still relatively low oil prices and sustained employment gains, which are also benefiting from past structural reforms, provide additional support for households, real disposable income and private consumption. In addition, the fiscal stance in the euro area will be broadly neutral in 2017. However, the economic recovery in the euro area is expected to be dampened by its still subdued foreign demand, the necessary balance sheet adjustments in a number of sectors and a sluggish pace of implementation of structural reforms. The risks to the euro area growth outlook remain tilted to the downside and relate mainly to the external environment. According to Eurostat, euro area annual HICP inflation in September 2016 was 0.4% up from 0.2% in August. This reflected mainly a continued 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, inflation rates are likely to pick up over the next couple of months, in large part owing to base effects in the annual rate of change of energy prices. Supported by our monetary policy measures and the expected economic recovery, inflation rates should increase further in 2017 and 2018. Turning to the monetary analysis, broad money M3 continued to increase at a robust pace in August 2016, with its annual rate of growth standing at 5.1% after 4.9% in July. 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 8.9% in August after 8.4% in July. 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 stood at 1.9% in August 2016. The annual growth rate of loans to households also remained stable at 1.8% in August. Although developments in bank credit continue to reflect the large relationship with the business cycle, credit risk and the ongoing adjustment of financial and non-financial sector balance sheets, the monetary policy measures in place since June 2014 are significantly supporting conditions for firms and households and thereby credit flows across the euro area. The euro area bank lending survey for the third quarter of 2016 indicates some further improvements in both supply and demand conditions for loans to the non-financial private sector. Furthermore, banks continued to report that the ECB's asset purchase program and the negative deposit facility rate had contributed to more favorable terms and conditions on loans. To sum up, across check of the outcome of the economic analysis with the signals coming from the monetary analysis confirmed the need 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. Monetary policies focused on maintaining price stability over the medium term and its accommodative stance supports economic activity, as emphasized repeatedly by the governing council and is again strongly echoed in both European and international policy discussions in order to reap the full benefits from our monetary policy measures. Other policy areas must contribute much more decisively, both at national and at European level. The implementation of structural reforms needs to be substantially stepped up to reduce structural unemployment and boost potential output growth in the euro area. Structure 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 including the extension of the Junker Plan 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 not only lead to higher sustainable economic growth in the euro area but will also make the euro area more resilient to global shocks. Fiscal policies should also support 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, all countries should strive for a more growth-friendly composition of fiscal policies. We are now at your disposal for questions. Johanna Tricpe and I. Thank you very much. Mr Draghi, could you give us a bit of a clearer idea on how you will assess whether inflation is on a sustained path towards price stability? Some of your colleagues have said that perhaps you might want to see a period of overshooting or you'll be looking at core inflation. What are going to be the key parameters that you'll be looking at? My second question is, has there been any discussion today about a change in policy specifically whether you might want to extend the QE programme beyond March 2017? Thank you very much. The answer to the second question was no discussion. The answer to the first question, it's really nothing new. I myself and my colleagues have said several times that when we speak of convergence to our objective this convergence has to be sustainable and durable. As a matter of fact, it should be self-sustained. In other words, right now we're all aware that the monetary policy support is in place extraordinary. We know and I said that the projections that are part of our outlook reflect financing conditions which reflect expectations that this support remains in place. The financing conditions not only of course are the output of these expectations but also of other factors like monetary policy and other jurisdictions but generally of many other factors. They do reflect also the expectations of this extraordinary policy support will remain in place but does it mean that it can stay in place forever? And the answer is of course not. We want a convergence which is self-sustained. In other words, without the extraordinary policy support that is in place now. Second, we've said several times that durable convergence means that this objective should be achieved in a sustainable and durable way. Namely, we look through blips that are caused by other factors. I think I've said everything here. Mrs. Kronimovsky? Yes, Kronimovsky, Bloomberg News. My first question is you said in December you benefit from work of the committees of the reviewing the program. Could you give us a bit of a flavor of certain preliminary reports on the work of committees that have already arrived? Just give us a general idea, a broad outline of what exactly, what measures you could be looking at, what measures are definitely out of the question. My second question would be more general I guess. In your opinion, what really provides the stimulus in your QE program? Is it the stock or the flow of your purchases? Because when you first designed the program, you gave the market a clear idea of the size. Now, more recently the focus of the market seems to be shifting to more to the monthly flow of your purchases. How would that shift impact your current review of the program and your eventual decision to exit the stimulus? Thank you. Thank you. Let me tell you, the second part was not discussed, but it's in a sense part of your first question. We had, we took stock of the ongoing technical work in the committees. Work that is designed to ensure a smooth execution of the program until March and beyond if necessary. We had a seminar and the work was presented. We discussed various options, but options that really would, we consider in case we should be confronted with a shortage of purchasable bonds in some jurisdictions. The governing council reaffirmed the importance of very supportive financing conditions in fostering the recovery and a gradual return of inflation to levels close to 2% over the medium term. I mean, sometimes it's also important to say what we did not discuss. And we didn't discuss tapering or the intended horizon. And here comes the second question of our asset purchase program. And by the way, the governing council reaffirmed that it certainly will take into account the input of the committees, but it just remains the ultimate decision maker here. Thank you. Ms. Jones. Claire Jones, Financial Times. Mr. Draghi, you just mentioned there that tapering wasn't discussed today. But do you expect it to be on the agenda six weeks from now? And just to return to Peter's point about stock and flow. You mentioned in answer to the first question that your forecast reflect expectations that the support that you've provided remains in place, but there's a stock and flow issue here as well. Do those forecasts reflect the idea that the stock of purchases will remain the same or that the flow will remain the same at 80 billion a month? I'm sorry to say, but we haven't discussed that. We haven't really touched on the issue at all. So we simply listened to the outcome of the committee's work and we mandated the committees to continue working. And as I said, the governing council will take as one of the inputs, the committee's work, but it remains the ultimate decision maker. About the expectation, it's what's going to be in the agenda for December meeting. We haven't really yet discussed that at all. But more generally, it's quite clear that our decisions in December will tell you what we are going to do in the coming months. And so they will define the monetary policy sort of, I would say, environment for the coming weeks and the coming months. Mr. Fellas. Thank you. Tom Fellas from the Wall Street Journal. I know you said you didn't discuss the measures that might be taken to prolong QE. I wonder if you could give a sense of which, whether certain of them might be less contentious or more effective when that discussion does take place in terms of buying beneath the depository floor or the other options? My second question is, on tapering, is there a possibility that they couldn't be tapering, that there would just be an abrupt end to the bond purchases? That was never discussed, as a matter of fact. I would say an abrupt ending to bond purchases, I think it's unlikely. On the first question, see, in a sense, why are we waiting for December? Because we want to see all the inputs that are useful to have this discussion. And that's important for having one view about which the governing council members can express their opinion. Right now we have options. In other words, to be more precise, we didn't go at all in the exercise of counting views or majorities or not. Ms. Mastro Buoni. Yes, Mr. Draghi. Tonya Mastro Buoni, La Repubblica. My question is about negative rates because some central bankers have expressed concerns in the last days on the effects of negative rates in the lending of some banks. So I wondered if you've talked about it today in the governing council or if there is some outcomes already on the effects of negative rates. Thanks. Now, firstly, we briefly touched upon negative rates or low rates more generally during the discussion we had about the current outlook. And the conclusion was that they don't hinder the transmission of our monetary policy. We have no evidence they actually hinder the transmission of our monetary policy. In other words, low rates work. They have worked. Like they've worked in other policy jurisdictions. And we are not the first to have low rates. Let me give you again a few numbers, but some of which you heard before. First of all, what would happen if rates had not been what they've been? The counterfactual. And the numbers here are that are measures taken from 2014 to March 2016 have generated additional inflation, cumulative inflation over 2016-2018 period for 1.4% and 1.3% of additional growth. So the second point is that just look at the behavior of rates since then till now. And they are dramatically lower across the spectrum. We've basically eliminated what was called the redenomination spread. We've eliminated fragmentation. If we, if I just spend a second on the recent BLS and recent bank lending survey, we see that net loan demand continue to increase for all loan categories. Credit standards continue to ease for households. And after nine months of continued easing, they were unchanged for non-financial corporations, companies. And banks as, and terms and conditions continue to ease. Although banks expect a small tightening, corporate bond issuance increase markedly. That's the other, that's the other, I would say, significant number. The issuance net issuance of corporate bonds in September has been very marked. And it's basically caused by our corporate bond purchase program. Lending rates are now at a historical low. That is another point that we want to remember. And the credit volumes have recovered since the beginning of 2014, from by and large minus 3% growth in 2014 to plus 2% growth now. But as you can see, the growth is still subdued. So it continues, it's steady, it follows basically the real economy growth. It's steady, but it's moderate. There are other important pieces of evidence come when we look at M3, where we see that the largest contribution to the robust growth of M3 comes more and more from non-governmental sector, namely households and firms. So these are all pieces of evidence that our policy is being transmitted more and more effectively to the economy. Thank you. Mr O'Donnell? Also in the Bank Lending Survey, John O'Donnell from Reuters. Also in the Bank Lending Survey, it emerged that demand in Italy and Spain was falling in their third quarter. How do you explain that the impact of your policy, a lot of it is directed at getting credit flowing again, is being felt unevenly in this respect across the Eurozone, and is there anything you can do to address that? And a second question on the topic of bail-in, which is a new rule to spread losses of banks in trouble. To what degree are the markets ready for a bail-in in the event of a large financial institution? Let me respond first to the second question. Bail-in rules are in place and they have enough flexibility that would allow to cope with the variety of possibilities. So there isn't any reason to be especially concerned. The Commission has all the power to apply the rules and to interpret the rules according to existing legislation. Having said that, I don't see at the present time any such an outcome, any such a possibility. The other question was about... First of all, I wouldn't make too much of that data point. It's only the first data we see after a long sequence of positive data. Second, well, loan demand depends on many other factors other than monetary policy. And we'll have to see what is the current economic situation concerning these two countries. We look at the aggregate. In the aggregate of the Eurozone, the developments are what I outlined before. Ms Weisbach? I'm Annette Weisbach with CNBC. I have a question regarding the scarcity of safe assets, which is, for example, distorting the repo market in Europe. How concerned are you about the fact that this is happening and are there any contingency plans in case there is further stress in that market? Second question is a bit larger. There are some people who are arguing, at least here in Europe, that what we are seeing currently is sort of an economic war between Europe, Germany, and the United States, looking at all the large fines, talking about Apple, for example, or also the Deutsche Bank potential, DOJ fine. What do you think? Are we here in a political game or what do you see? Thank you. The answer to the second question is no, we are not. At least that's my perception. We are not in a political game. All parties in doing what they do, apply legislation, apply laws, apply rules. They're not acting because they're politically motivated. Again, that's my individual perception. People may have different views about that. But the impression is not at all of a political war here. On the other point, we discussed scarcity, as I said. We had the seminar, the presentation. Much of the discussion was about how to overcome scarcity if that were to become a problem. So it's not a problem now. The asset purchase program continues to run smoothly. The corporate bond purchase program has been a success so far. Beyond, in fact, our expectations. And so it's not a current issue. But just in case, much of the discussion was around that theme. Mr. Malin. Thank you. Jan Malin, Hanitz Blatt. Mr. Draghi, the bond markets have reacted quite strongly on a report that the ECB could gradually wind down its bond purchases. Were you surprised by the market reaction, or was it in line with your expectation? And my second question is, you've stressed that there are still important risks in the forthcoming months. Could the ECB, for example, still lower its interest rates if external risks materialize? Thank you. Thank you. Second question. We haven't discussed anything like that. As I said, it simply took stock of the committee's work, and I'm not going to ask her an outlook, which hasn't changed much since the last time we met. On the first question, I mean, I've seen a market reaction, and that's why I said that the governing council is the ultimate decision maker that will use the input from the committees, but as one of the inputs in the discussion. So that's why I said that. Second question. I think it's very difficult to answer about my expectation of a market reaction following a kind of a random statement made by somebody who didn't have any clue or information about that. Thank you. Mr. Melli? Alessandro Melli of Insolventi Quattro, I have a question about your asset purchase program. There were a downgrade of Portugal tomorrow by DBRS that provoked an immediate stop to your purchase of Portuguese bonds, and if you could report any news or any progress on Greece in respect of purchasing their bonds. My other question is about a recent statement by British Prime Minister May, who said there are bad side effects from QE and ultra-low or very low interest rates. One of them, she pointed out, is growing inequality. I wonder what your opinion is on that. And she also said that a change has got to come and we're going to deliver it, which was read as an attack to central bank independence. As many statements are made also in this country and other countries of the euro area for you to change your monetary policy from policymakers and politicians, I wonder if you feel that there is a growing feeling among politicians or a growing threat from politicians to central bank independence. Thank you. No, I don't feel threatened. Neither is the independence of monetary policy by the governing council is threatened. On the inequality, we certainly have looked at that and I think we've discussed that on other occasions. The point is, and there is actually an interesting study by the Bundesbank on whether more generally non-conventional monetary policy measures increase in equality, the answer is by and large no. And the reason is that the main source of inequality is unemployment. So to the extent that the monetary policy is effective, it will reduce inequality. Although as you buy assets from people who are wealthy in the short run, you certainly increase in equality. But when you look at things over the short run, no, the answer is no. That's what I would say about what you asked me about Portugal and Greece. Now, on Portugal, the bonds are currently eligible as the first best rating is triple B minus with a stable outlook by this rating agency. So, and we know that if there is a downgrade, marketable debt instruments issued or guaranteed by the Republic of Portugal would become ineligible as collateral for monetary policy operations and for purchases under the PSPP. Having said that, we should acknowledge the remarkable progress that's been achieved in Portugal. So, of course, there are vulnerabilities that the government knows very well. And the government is aware that ambitious reforms are needed. And we can simply adjust from our angle. There is one area that I want to highlight, which is the corporate debt restructuring and the addressing the problem of the NPL, the non-performing loans. So that's what it is. About Greece is discussions about debt sustainability are continuing. We have expressed, like also like others, like everybody else, concerns about debt sustainability. Therefore, measures have to be undertaken to address this problem. And in the governing council, when time will come, we'll assess in an independent way the debt sustainability. Until then, it's premature to sort of speculate about purchasing bonds. Thank you. Mr. Lacour? Mr. Lacour, welcome back to the question raised before my colleague Maline asked you if you were surprised by the market reactions after this Bloomberg report. I will ask you how the ECB profited from this market reaction. I mentioned, for instance, the tightening of some rates on a long curve that maybe help for a smooth implementation of QE. So how did the ECB profit of these weeks before? And the second question, we have seen that the hard landing of an aircraft on a mass planet can cause damages. That's certainly not making a parallel. What the ECB wants to go through with a sudden stop of a QE. But you made this statement before simply ruining out a kind of sudden stop of the QE without, also you hadn't discussed it any time yet now by the governing council. What makes you so sure or what makes this statement made from you? Because there is another bank of England, for example, experimented the sudden stop of a purchase program. So why either choosing the fadeway, for example? Thank you. Thank you. The answer to the second question is that my perception is that the sudden stop as it was outlined before is not in anybody's mind. It's not present in anybody's mind. It's not something that people naturally contemplate. And there are many reasons and fairly obvious reasons why this is so. On your first question, actually I never thought that we could profit out of sudden moves of coming from unauthorized and probably uninformed sources. And I have no idea whether the ECB profit out of that. But certainly I can only reiterate that profits is not the reason why we run monetary policy. Thank you. My first one is you said that the extraordinary monetary policy support cannot stay in place forever. Do you have a feeling that that market participants and investors are a little bit too complacent about QE being there forever, at least for a very, very long period of time? And do you think it would make sense if they prepare themselves for the end of QE? And the other one is on inflation expectations. I guess you had the survey today. What does it say regarding the longer term inflation expectations and related to that? What is your assessment of the most recent developments of the inflation expectations on financial markets because they have not really picked up although inflation is rising? Thank you. I can only, as far as market expectations, I can only in a sense respond, pointing out to the fact that the current outlook, the current outlook and the current R baseline scenario of a rate of inflation which will gradually converge towards the R objective is predicated on the current financing conditions which are accommodative because they are themselves based on the remaining in place amongst other things of the extraordinary monetary policy support offered by the ECB monetary policy. And that's it. That's what markets expect. In a sense they are complacent or not. I think this is part of the more general category of financial stability risks. We certainly monitor, continue to monitor financial markets and so far we haven't seen evidence of bubbles whereby a bubble, they define a bubble as a marked rising asset prices accompanied by a marked increase in leverage. So we monitor financial stability risks. We have not seen any systemic bubble of any kind. We have expressed several times the point that these bubbles ought to be developed with macro-prudential instruments. And I think that's it on this point. On inflation expectations, we have two sets of inflation expectations. The survey-based inflation expectations are market-based. The survey-based have been by and large more stable than market-based ones. It's a long-term point to 1.8 if I'm not mistaken. And they've been quite stable all throughout this period. The market-based inflation expectations have been more volatile as they are based on financial instruments and therefore the market developments for these instruments do affect in a sense also the expectations. We've seen that in a period immediately before and more markedly after the British referendum, inflation expectations by and large across all horizons have declined quite significantly. But then now, of more recent, they are recovering their path. So we're also looking at that. It's part of our information set. Though we have to be aware that certain stable pieces of evidence like for example the correlation between inflation expectations and short-term and actual inflation or inflation expectations and the oil price have been themselves very volatile. So it's very difficult to really draw any stable inference from these correlations at present time. Mr. Yenit here, Frankfurter Agemeiner, Sontag Zeitung. Mr. Draghi, would you rule out raising interest rates while QE is still in place? Let me read you the introductory statement. It's based on our regular economic and monetary analysis. We decided to keep the key ECB interest rates unchanged. 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. Thank you. Thorsten Schulte, Silberjunge. President Draghi, since the beginning of June, the ECB has bought more than 660 corporate bonds. According to Bloomberg, among these companies are Nestle, Glencore, Novartis, Roche, all in all nine companies from Switzerland that have nothing to do with the euro. So why, Mr. President? That's my first question. The second question is five year corporate bonds with a triple B rating now yield a 0.23%. I repeat, a 0.23%. This is just one notch above junk bond level and I think that's money for peanuts. So your bond buying program only reduces the refinancing costs for large caps. Therefore, it helps these larger companies to take over smaller ones. Your corporate bond buying leads to a distortion of competition. You support the big corporations and you jeopardize the smaller and medium sized ones. My question is how can you justify this, Mr. President? Thank you. Well, I don't have to justify. I'm just saying that it's not true. As a matter of fact, both the corporate bond program and the cover bond program do benefit SMEs as well. They have increased the issuance by large corporates, of course. But in so doing, they free space in bank lending so that you can see actually that the spread between loans to SMEs and loans to large corporates has declined quite considerably. Thank you. Okay, I think we've got, we've exhausted the questions. I look around again. That's fine. I think we're pressed for time anyway. So thank you very much.