 Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm all to speak, let me say that first in a conference with such esteemed speakers like Mr. Constancer or Mr. Noonan this morning, of course the disadvantage of speaking at this hour is that much has been said already in the morning. The good thing, at least for me, is that I speak as the first of these four people, so I have a slight advantage still. And also, I apologize in advance that I'm not going to say too much about the asset goal to reviews, if you expect that, but if you have questions, of course I'm open to answering those afterwards. I was confronted with a different question with a seemingly straightforward topic to contemplate on in my short address. I was invited to express my views about the future of banking from a perspective of a core country. It turned out to be quite a challenging task though, because what I started to realize was that the Dutch perspective, and probably also my own, is becoming a critically European, getting closer to the perspective of our peers. So today I would like to explore the process of such evaluation and try together with you to take a glance at the future, which I believe to be our common future, the European future. So about this Dutch perspective, from a linguistic point of view, the countdown future is always, of course you should know, starting at the present moment, when with hindsight, with the present knowledge of our actions and achievements, we try to build plans that would lead us to our goals and aspirations, goals that are yet to be achieved. However, today, if you would bear with me for a moment, I would like to start the countdown of the future at almost half, one and a half year ago, which was, as you know, as already mentioned this morning, the moment on which the President of the European Council, Mr van Rompuy, presented a report on June 26, 2012, developed in cooperation with the President of the Commission, Eurogroup and European Central Bank, entitled Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union, a report that was setting an EU-wide vision and action plan that would take perhaps over a decade to implement. The first cornerstone of this framework, and I'm going to say a bit more about that, which by today we are putting in its rightful place was the single supervisory mechanism, about which a lot has been said in the morning already. It is meant to address structural shortcomings in the institutional framework for bank supervision and financial stability, shortcomings that are particularly relevant for the Eurozone, where interdependencies resulting from the single currency are the most pronounced. So without looking forward to my own, I can confidently quote the mentioned report which deemed integrated Euro area banking supervision to be, and I quote, essential to ensure the effective application of potential rules, risk control and crisis prevention. So at that point, central banks of the Eurozone and national governments had a common interest, getting another pillar in place to support the monetary union, but perhaps still somewhat different perspectives. And supervisory authorities, whether separate or being within the central bank, like myself, were more of an object of the reform at that point in time than the steering wheel of it. But that has changed when the SSM preparations actually started at the ECB, involving all the national supervisors in the process directly. So together with the ECB, we were asked to develop the future supervisory model of the SSM in the so-called supervisory manual, Mr. Konstantino referred to that already, and the legal framework for cooperation between the ECB and the national competent authorities that the SSM would rely upon, the so-called framework regulation, which by the way will be publicly consultant as of January, as you might already know. We entered the scene, so talking about perspectives, I think we entered the scene all with our own distinct vision of what future Eurozone supervision would look like. And we discovered differences, slight and significant in how we conduct supervision at home. However, we all had one common goal in mind, to take the best practices and look for common approaches and build upon them to have a new, efficient and effective European model of supervision. I'm proud to say that although at the start each supervisor might have hoped that their model is the perfect one, and should by all means be taken over and elevated to the European level, we have come to realize that borrowing the best from our peers and creating something new is actually the right way forward. At home, we are yet to adjust to these new developments, but one year from the start of preparations, I dare to say a new Eurozone perspective on what a single supervisory mechanism should look like has emerged. About the comprehensive assessment and a few words. As you all know, of course, the ECB has just launched this exercise, the so-called comprehensive assessment, and again, a few things have been said about that already. It's an important starting point for the commencement of the Eurozone supervision. As a chair of the work stream that led to work on designing this comprehensive assessment and specifically the asset quality reviews, I had another chance to take a step back from the purely Dutch perspective on all this and concentrate on the framing of the Eurozone objectives and methodologies for the exercise. And risking to add even more complexity to the different perspectives on all this, I would like to try and take a look at this from the perspective of one of the most important stakeholders, the banking sector. Which is actually a question in my mind that I don't know how many bankers are in the room, because I've heard a lot of policymakers and central bankers and supervisors and people from the press. We have bankers as well. We're just talking about bankers. In the short term, back to the story, starting early in 2014, as you know, the Eurozone banks are facing execution of the asset quality reviews. It's no secret, I think, and people have been saying that all along that the project is bigger than probably any of us, at least most of us have ever done. Is it certainly true for myself? And all that in a tight timeframe with huge complexity and an unprecedented rigor. We have our supervisory objectives in mind, transparency, as has been said, regaining public and investor confidence in the sector, cleaning up the balance sheets, even recapitalization if needed. However, I'd like to think there's a lot in this for the banks themselves as well. Not only will they have the chance to regain the trust of markets, politicians, and the public, but also to get an insight into the resilience and soundness of their peers. Banks are each other's business partners. And currently, frankly, they have nearly the same degree of mistrust in each other as the public has in all of them. The comprehensive assessment may be burdensome, fair enough, but it's also a chance, a chance to set foot again on more solid ground for the banks. However, the SSM does not stop with the comprehensive assessment. Of course, it starts with it. So in 2014 and 15, together with the banks, we are facing implementation of this single supervisory mechanism and a transfer to direct supervision by the ECB, supported by us as local supervisors. Core elements of the SSM supervisory framework that will impact the banks do not end with changing the authority responsible for supervision. The institutional setup will finally reflect the cross-border character of the banking business. And we might start to see and hope true European banks. The very supervisory cultural imminently changes my strong conviction, characterized by our rigor, consistency, and intrusiveness. And more operationally, I don't want to bore you. There's going to be a big thing for banks. The crucial element of the new eurozone supervision is expected its data intensity to say it like that. But obviously, I think a huge reporting and IT impact on the banks. We should be mindful, at the same time, that in parallel with this important change in the institutional landscape, banks will need to migrate to Basel III and CD4 requirements. Capital and locator requirements with new regulatory elements introduced like the level ratio as well. And I'm strongly convinced that this is necessary, but it's certainly not an easy path to work on. Especially since the challenge will be, from my perspective, to increase buffers in times when the real economy recuperates only slowly and with a parallel need to not decrease or preferably increase lending to the real economy. So not an easy path indeed. I understand that I'm not looking too far into the future of banking. I hope that's not too disappointing. But 2014 and 15 will be very important years of transition to the SSM, and that is where the future, at least for eurozone banks, starts. Perhaps lastly, still contemplating the banking sector perspective, I would foresee and frankly hope and expect to see significant business moment change. I think it has been mentioned in the morning as well. Bankers should aim at building sound and safe banks again, aimed at supporting the real economy as retail, as a me, wholesale, and maybe even making markets. But not at designing and speculating with structured products, being true banks again, not asset managers, as some had de facto become. So the next step is developing business models, allowing banks to be a remain profitable long term, albeit under a tighter regulatory regime. The EBA has been mentioned in the morning as well. We started off with a vision over reform that is needed beyond the boundaries of the eurozone. So let's get back to that. It's important, by the way, to remind ourselves, as Mr. Konstantinov said as well, that the SSM is open to non-eurozone countries, of course, to join. But apart from that, the European banking sector will be functioning in an environment that is integrated by more than institutional reforms. It's supervision. I've already mentioned the CED-4 package that's been discussed in the morning as well. That will bring further convergence and harmonization of the regulatory landscape. And this single rulebook that has been mentioned before is being developed by the European banking authority, as you all know, is crucial for ensuring level play and field for the banks. The EBA, just as the ECB, and it's forgotten sometimes, I think, has a tremendous task, although over a different nature vested upon it. The CED-4 package envisages over 270 binding technical standards to be developed by the EBA. Among them, numerous standards in the areas of on funds, liquidity, credit and market risk, recovery and resolution planning, consumer protection, and so forth. Maybe it's a side step on consumer protection. I realize that in the morning, we mostly talk about the economy and the financial markets and the system and the banks. I don't think I heard, I might be wrong, I don't think I heard the word consumer, at least not much. Let's not forget about that dimension of all of this. A big part of, in the end, the thing that we all do it for. I would like to think. The EBA is already quite far in that process of developing these standards with the first batches of technical standards submitted to the European Commission for final endorsement. The EBA, back to this perspective thing again, the EBA is a member-driven organization, which means that we, the national supervisory authorities at the EBA table, are helping to develop this single rulebook for the whole EU. And maybe it's fair to say that it was at the EBA table on different stages of this process of developing European regulation that we learned to converge and compromise and hopefully synthesize our national views and sentiments in order to work in the interests of the European Union including our own countries and banking sectors, instead of just looking at our own local sector. So in other words, for regulatory purposes also, we are gradually evolving our perspectives to pave the way to European-wide thinking and European-wide goals. Hopefully the SSM will bring even more convergence also in this context. And we must by all means avoid, let's really cry of heart, avoid the vision into the Eurozone and non-Eurozone perspectives in Europe. We have a common goal to achieve, that's that genuine economic and monetary union that we keep mentioning today. So concluding, I hope these future challenges for banks and supervisors do not come across as a too gloomy picture. Maybe central bankers and supervisors do not have the reputation of being optimists. For me, I would rather like to think of it as constructive realism. I'm actually personally optimistic about the future of banking and banks in Europe. I'd like to say that banks had, have and will have a crucial role in the economy fostering and enabling growth. But it will be a different ballgame with new roles. And frankly, looking back at the last five to six years, it must be a different game. So with the single supervisory mechanism, we are making the first important step and visited in the report of Mr. van Rompuy. That I mentioned before, it is somewhat unfortunate, of course, we're talking about the future of banking here. It's somewhat unfortunate that we don't have a crystal ball predicting the future. I would have liked that also in preparing the speech. That would have at least give us a chance to take a peek at the future and to see whether we will succeed in the following steps. However, what we can do not having a crystal ball is work together with the banks, I would say, with a common vision of a sound and stable banking sector and with common means, the first of which is a single supervisory mechanism and make the future a little bit more predictable. Thanks for your attention.