 I will, without any further ado, give the floor to Bertrand. You have the floor, Bertrand. Thank you, Jean-Claude. I will try to be brief, since I'm going to be a little on the side of the main questions probably, although I think what I'm going to put on the table is likely to be central for the coming years. I'd like to touch base on the question that has been addressed this year in many places, the reset of capitalism. So there are a number of things which have happened this year. Is it for real, or is it just a fade? It's early days to say. People have reacted to the business roundtable called End of August. You had the cover page of The Economist also, which was somewhat misleading when you compared to the content on what our company is for. You had the initiatives of President Macron at the G7 called the Business for Inclusive Growth with the OECD, led by Emmanuel Faber, the CEO of Danone. And you have the growing importance of impact, sustainable development goals, related investments, et cetera, emphasized by the fact that the big players are moving. I mean, Moody's has bought one of the non-financial, extra-financial rating agencies in France. ISS has done the same in Germany. S&P just appointed a global head for extra-financial ratings, and so on and so forth. So there is something happening, I think, and it's big because of the pressure from mostly consumers, sometimes investors, but I think it's still fragile, and it's still prone to washing. So you heard the expression green washing. I discovered a few weeks ago, you know, for those of you who don't know, these are the sustainable development goals, and now you call it rainbow washing, which is a diversification. So you still have on the one hand a lot of goodwill with some CEOs, institutions, which tend to do the great things, but there are no standards. There are no real definitions, so you can basically call whatever you want, and depending on how you mention it, you can say there are $30 trillion of dollars invested in ESG-related products, or if you're very strict, you say it's less than $500 billion, which have an impact in a way or another, and both are probably true. At the moment where people realize that capitalism, as it is working today, is unlikely to address the climate change issue and the social inequality issue naturally. You need a little bit of push. So is the glass half full or half empty? I don't know, but I think it's on top of the question that are being raised by the zero rate environment, or negative rates environment, which can be the worst or the best of things. It can be the worst if people are paralyzed and unable to do new things or take risks, et cetera, which so far seems to be the norm, or it can be the best if it forces people to think out of the box and realize that we just discussed that, okay, you can get minus zero or 5% if you buy European bonds, but you can get 10 or 12%, if you do the right thing in Africa, or Latin America. I'm sorry, I'm a little biased in that. So I think it's more than just a coincidence. I think there are, again, a growing concern after the crisis. People realize that we have not really addressed the root causes of the financial crisis. 10 years down the road, we're still there. At the same time, we're focused on climate issues and social issues is gaining traction. In a world where there is still a big distress for finance, so it might be a nice way to regain the trust of the consumer and investors by doing the right things. Not sure we're getting there, but so the point is, how can we go beyond fashion, beyond marketing, beyond confusing products, beyond traditional corporate social responsibility? And basically to be consistent with what we agreed in 2015, so in 2015, we agreed on climate, except one country now, but we agreed on the sustainable development goals, including climate, actually, and as far as I know, the US are still part of the sustainable development goal framework. So we have agreed on the framework, on the roadmap, we have not discussed the financial system to get there. And we have to overcome a number of issues. It's still a very complex issue. It's a complex issue to measure. It's a complex issue to rate these things. The methodologies are different. Expectations are different. Vestal interest are different. The datas, I mean, are very difficult. It's very easy to say, yes, let's do the good things and then try to get the datas to confirm you've done the good things is something difficult. There is also an issue between emerging market and advanced economy. I mean, trying to invest in emerging market, you don't want to impose a new Washington consensus, which is on sustainability now. We are back and now we have a great idea. You do this. Well, sometimes you have some resistance. And you will have probably some misselling issues. Think of Volkswagen. Volkswagen was considered a highlight of ESG before the diesel gate scandal. And so people say, my God, I got a lot of diesel gate of Volkswagen shares and they were ESG and I felt comfortable and actually they were not. So to fill the glass to the end, I think we have to accept this diversity of approach today. Even if skepticism still dominates, I think this is how we will create accountability. We have to go beyond the nice green bonds, to go beyond the nice social bonds, et cetera. And we need, at some stage, to finish with that, to start working on the system. And actually, what do I mean with that? And it's, again, it's a 20 years perspective. It's really, and I'm gonna be very simplistic, to move from the Milton Friedman approach to the social purpose of business is to make profit. Always nice variation is to make profit for shareholders. Also, he added, to be fair, that you need to take into consideration societal acceptance of that. That tend to forget that important element. How do we move from that to what Colin Meyer in particular in Oxford say? The social purpose of business is to find profitable solutions for the planet and its people. So it's not profit as an end to an end, but profit as a means to an end. Which means entering into the nitty gritty details of accounting, compensation, reporting, disclosure, regulatory framework, et cetera. And basically, at the end of the day, we connect capitalism with people and the territories, et cetera. And add a third dimension to the risk return traditional financial approach which is risk return on sustainability or risk return on impact. How do we take into account the fact that we are in a finite world and we have to take this into consideration? And as I say sometimes to irritate the accountants, we have to move from a mark to market system to a mark to planet system. And my kids say daddy, you should create the hashtag mark to planet which is a nice suggestion. Thank you. It is a nice conclusion too, obviously. Thank you very, very much indeed. I take it that it is a responsibility also of public authorities to give the appropriate, I would say rules, regulations, set of prices that would drive the decentralized decision of the private sector in the right direction without asking them to lose money because otherwise we are all lost. Thank you so much Bertrand.