 Yes, over there, third row. Thank you. Stefan Simon from Deposit Solutions. My question, pretty simple. What is your view on having temporary versus permanent fallbacks, so differentiating between the two if the original benchmark sees as only for a given period of time or permanently? I can say some words first. I think fallback rates don't apply if on a specific day there might be a problem with the original benchmark. So with your IBO, we have ourselves built up a lot of contingency for temporary, for some temporary problems for a certain period of time. So maybe then the fallback rates should hit in for more structural issues there. Again, I think it's a great question, one we're debating in our working groups at the moment, both in relation to the IBO fallbacks, but also in relation to benchmarks more generally in the updated definitions we're looking to issue in 2020. And intuitively, you would want provisions that may have told you what to do if a benchmark didn't publish for one or two days. That seems obvious, but when you actually get down to what those provisions should be, the solutions aren't necessarily obvious. So we could use the previous day's published rate, for example, but in a volatile market, and that may be the cause of a lack of publication, that could actually cause quite a lot of pain in the market. I think historically, we might have said, well, the calculation agent can determine what the rate should be, but I think that goes down very badly with end users and buy-side institutions, and we're trying to move away from that unfettered discretion. So that begs the question, is it sometimes better not to say anything? Is it, you know, the market has functioned incredibly well for 30 or 40 years without having a temporary disruption fallback. Permanent cessation is an existential threat, if you like, and therefore definitely has to be addressed. Temporary cessation, I think, or temporary interruption, I think, is of a different magnitude. More questions. Karen Roberts, chat and financial. So we have a lot of corporate clients, and our corporate clients, I must admit, over the last six months, haven't asked us any questions about Esther. They ask us, you're a bore, you're a bore, you're a bore, what's happening with you're a bore? And I think they've found lots of information on the internet about Esther and not so much about the timetable for hybrid, you're a bore. And I think when they do find it, they don't understand it. So they don't understand the benchmark regulation and what that means, and they struggle to understand how the methodology is changing, whether the rate they pay will change, how much it will change. Now, I acknowledge they can find all of that information buried in some of the consultations, et cetera, but it's just a little bit too technical for them. Will that be, or is there already some information I've missed in terms of kind of client-friendly or corporate-friendly, high-level educational material about what's happening to your ego reform? I mean, I must say, so one reason why we have these round tables because we are aware of this, that maybe there's a relatively small group of financial market participants out there that really fully understand what's going on and have the capacity to understand all these technical developments. So one reason why we try to have these round tables is to reach out to exactly this type of clients that you're referring to. Now, I mean, we have a few material on the ECB website that's maybe too technical, but we have also twittered a few times with the aim of exactly reaching out to less sophisticated clients. On your right, Jean-Louis. There is a lot of material, for instance, on our website whenever we had consultation or come out with clarifications document, we have distributed them as widely as possible to any possible financial association and so on. And if there are some questions for clarification, we are more than happy to even come or to explain more. It is difficult on our side to make some available education material that are especially targeted to specific users because the range of users and across jurisdiction and so on is so wide that the basic things, even in a pedagogical way, they are available on our website. For instance, on the methodology, while we have the full methodology that is published there, we have also a blueprint which goes step by step to explain how it is. We have been communicated on the start of the phase in and on the intention, so it's available and if there are problems finding it, more than happy my colleagues and myself to guide you through that. I would say it's not difficult for me to find. I think it's difficult for end users if you go to even quite large and sophisticated corporates, probably find some of that material too dense. They need something on two pages that tells them what's happening in a very practical way. If that's something that Emmy would be able to provide, I think it would be extremely useful to that section of the market. Maybe on the efforts of the working group? Yeah, on the working group, I fully see your point. It's not only on your riber, also on these fallbacks and also the ADA only to the EOSTR transition. It is quite technical. I think we have a couple of speaker panels and also some presentations today which can still be very technical. We have not mentioned our last working subgroup, which is actually subgroup 7, which is around communication. And there we are thinking about the communication strategy that on both topics, EOSTR transition, but also your riber and your riber fallbacks, how should we communicate? How should we educate and communicate to our clients? And indeed, for the less sophisticated clients, we have to prepare a different setup. So there we are working on, and I think we will also closely work together with EMMI to get more clarity and to inform these clients properly, because this is a clear signal that things are not sufficiently clear yet, which is for us work to be done. Thanks. Thank you. I can take one last question here in the middle, and then I fear we have to close. Thank you. Elspeth Kruse, Aimeen Emerald Bank. This actually ties on the last question. I think we already mentioned trust, and I think this is also linked to transparency and information. And thanks very much for hosting this roundtable. It's very useful, but I see a risk if the financial institutions attending this roundtable have to translate all this information into the retail and SME clients in relation to especially Raibor. So I would really strongly recommend Subgroup 7 to also think about those client groups, and it's just so much stronger if it's communicated from European authorities, which are still very much respected by the public instead of banks, where there's a general distrust, I'm afraid, if it comes to pricing matters. Oh, thank you. I will take this question. No, we are very much aware of this. We are also developing efforts to reach out to more clients. And I mean, we are facilitating this, not only this event, but also the whole working group to give it also credibility and make it appear not only a private sector endeavor, but really a public-private partnership. But I hear you and I very much agree with you I mean, now we have had so many technical steps that the working group has taken care of. I think the communication was more difficult before having real details of what's going on now, because that can be even more confusing. So I think the more we progress with the work of the working group and have clear recommendations, the easier it will be also to transmit them to the general public. So thank you very much to the panel for your excellent contributions and to the audience for coming here and listening and asking very good questions. All the videos and presentations will be made available on the website, so please forward them to your clients if they are not too technical. Before I hand over to Steven for the final remarks, let me just say that we will have a sandwich lunch that you are welcome to attend and it will again be out here if you follow the corridor a few steps up on the terrace. Yeah, so thanks a lot and Steven, could you come up please?