 So, ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President and I are very pleased to welcome you to our press conference. I would like to thank – I mean, is there an echo here? Can we – I'd like to thank the Chairman of the Board, Vasily Auskas-Vitas, for your kind hospitality and express our special gratitude to his staff for the excellent organization of today's meeting of the Governing Council. We'll now report on the outcome of our meeting. Based on our regular economic and monetary analysis, we have conducted a thorough assessment of the economic and inflation outlook. Also taking into account the latest staff macroeconomic projections for the Euro area, as a result, the Governing Council took the following decisions in the pursuit of its price stability objective. First, we decided to keep the key ECB interest rates unchanged. We now expect them to remain at their present levels, at least through the first half of 2020, and in any case for as long as necessary to ensure the continued sustained convergence of inflation to levels that are below but close to 2% over the medium term. Second, we intend to continue reinvesting in full the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the asset purchase program for an extended period of time past the date when we start raising the key ECB interest rates. And in any case for as long as necessary to maintain favorable liquidity conditions and an ample degree of monetary accommodation. Third, regarding the modalities of the new series of quarterly targeted longer term refinancing operations, TELTRA 3, we decided that the interest rate in each operation will be set at a level that is 10 basis points above the average rate applied in the Euro systems main refinancing operations over the life of the respective TELTRA. For banks whose eligible net lending exceeds a benchmark, the rate applies in TELTRA 3 will be lower and can be as low as the average interest rate on the deposit facility prevailing over the life of the operation plus 10 basis points. I press release with further details on the terms of the TELTRA 3 will be published at 3.30 today. The Governing Council also assessed that at this point in time the positive contribution of negative interest rates to the accommodative monetary policy stance and to the sustained convergence of inflation is not undermined by possible side effects on bank-based intermediation. However, we will continue to monitor carefully the bank-based transmission channel of monetary policy and the case for mitigating measures. Today's monetary policy decisions were taken to provide the monetary accommodation necessary for inflation to remain on a sustained path towards levels that are below but close to 2% over the medium term. Despite the somewhat better than expected data for the first quarter, the most recent information indicates that global headwinds continue to weigh on the Euro area outlook. The prolonged presence of uncertainties related to geopolitical factors, the rising threat of protectionism and vulnerabilities in emerging markets is living its mark on economic sentiment. At the same time, further employment gains and increasing wages continue to underpin the resilience of the Euro area economy and gradually rise in inflation. Today's policy measures ensure that financial conditions will remain very favorable, supporting the Euro area expansion, the ongoing build-up of domestic price pressures and thus, headlining inflation developments over the medium term. Looking ahead, the governing council is determined to act in case of adverse contingencies and also stands ready to adjust all its instruments as appropriate to ensure that inflation continues to move towards the governing council's inflation aim in a sustained manner. Let me now explain our assessment in greater detail, starting with the economic analysis. Euro area real GDP rose by 0.4% quarter on quarter in the first quarter of 2019, following an increase of 0.2% in the fourth quarter of 2018. However, incoming economic data and survey information point to somewhat weaker growth in the second and third quarters of this year. And this reflects the ongoing weakness in international trade in an environment of global uncertainties, prolonged global uncertainties, which are weighing in particular on the Euro area manufacturing sector. At the same time, the Euro area services and construction sectors are showing resilience and the labor market is continuing to improve. Looking ahead, the Euro area expansion will continue to be supported by favorable financing conditions, the mildly expansionary Euro-era fiscal stance, further employment gains and rising wages, and the ongoing, albeit somewhat slower, growth in global activity. This assessment is broadly reflected in the June 2019 Euro system staff macroeconomic projections for the Euro area. These projections foresee annual real GDP, increasing by 1.2% in 2019, 1.4% in 2020, and 1.4% in 2021. Compared with the March 2019 ECB staff macroeconomic projections, the outlook for real GDP growth has been revised up by 0.1 percentage points for 2019, it's been revised down by 0.2 percentage points for 2020 and 0.1 percentage points for 2021. The risks surrounding the Euro-era growth outlook remain tilted on the downside. On account of the prolonged presence of uncertainties related to geopolitical factors, the rising threat of protectionism and vulnerabilities in emerging markets. According to Eurostat's flash estimate, Euro area annual HICP inflation was 1.2% in May 2019 after 1.7% in April, reflecting mainly lower energy and services price inflation. On the basis of current futures prices for oil, headline inflation is likely to decline over the coming months before rising again towards the end of the year. Looking through the recent volatility due to temporary factors, measures of underlying inflation remain generally muted, but labor cost pressures continue to strengthen and broaden amid high levels of capacity utilization and tightening labor markets. Looking ahead, underlying inflation is expected to increase over the medium term, supported by our monetary policy measures, the ongoing economic expansion, and stronger wage growth. This assessment is also broadly reflected in the June 2019 Euro system staff macroeconomic projections for the Euro area, which foresee annual HICP inflation at 1.3% in 2019, 1.4% in 2020, and 1.6% in 2021. Compared with the March this year, HICP staff projections, the outlook for inflation is being revised up by 0.1 percentage points for 2019 and down by 0.1 percentage points for 2020. Turning to the monetary analysis, broad money M3 growth stood at 4.7% in April after 4.6 in March. Sustained rates of broad money growth reflect ongoing bank credit creation for the private sector and low opportunity costs of holding M3. The narrow monetary aggregate M1 continues to be the main contributor to broad money growth on the components side. The annual growth rate of loans to non-financial corporations increased to 3.9% in April 2019 from 3.6% in March. Beyond short-term volatility, the annual growth rate of loans to non-financial corporations has moderated somewhat in recent months from its peak in September 2018, reflecting the typical lagged reaction to the slowdown in economic growth observed over the course of 2018. The annual growth rate of loans to the households stood at 3.4% in April compared with 3.3% in March, continuing its gradual improvement. The monetary policy measures taken today, including TELTRA 3, will help to safeguard favorable bank lending conditions and will continue to support access to financing, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises. To sum up, a cross-check of the outcome of economic analysis with the signals coming from the monetary analysis confirmed that an ample degree of monetary accommodation is still necessary for the continued sustained convergence of inflation to levels that are below but close to 2% over the medium term. In order to rip the full benefits from our monetary policy measures, other policy areas must contribute more decisively to raising the longer-term growth potential and reducing vulnerabilities. The implementation of structural reforms in euro-era countries needs to be substantially stepped up to increase resilience, reduce structural unemployment, and boost euro-era productivity and growth potential. The 2019 country-specific recommendations should serve as a relevant signpost. Regarding fiscal policies, the mildly expansionary euro-era fiscal stance is providing support to economic activity. At the same time, countries where government debt is high need to continue rebuilding fiscal buffers. All countries should reinforce their efforts to achieve a more growth-friendly composition of public finances. Likewise, the transparent and consistent implementation of the European Union's fiscal and economic governance framework over time and across countries remains essential to bolster the resilience of the euro-era economy. Improving the functioning of the economic and monetary union remains a priority. The governing council welcomes the ongoing work and urges further specific and decisive steps to complete the banking union and the capital markets union. And now we are at your disposal for questions. Ms. Locke? Caroline Locke, Bloomberg News. Mr. Draghi, in today's policy statement, you said that interest rates will remain at their current levels through the first half of next year. However, the market is actually pricing for the next ECB interest rate move should be... Can you hear me better now? Is it...? Yeah? Listen, hold on. Is this better? It's probably better. Yeah? Let's see. Okay. So you said that interest rates will remain at their current levels through the first half of next year. But the market is actually pricing for the next interest rate move to be in cut. And if you look at the market reaction after you issued the policy statement, it does look like investors were actually expecting more. So would you say that markets are perhaps getting ahead of themselves, even though you have said in the past that markets are pricing in the ECB's reaction function? My second question is on market-based inflation expectations, which have continued to slide recently. You've said in the past that that was because of negative risk premium, predominantly. Yeah. How long can you continue to see market-based inflation expectations so low below your aim? Yeah. In the extension of the forward guidance, you have to distinguish between market-based expectations of interest rates and survey and expectation survey expectations. The extension of the six months of this forward guidance basically takes into account the prolongation of uncertainty with respect to what we saw and believed and deemed in March. We've seen that the threat of rising protectionism and in fact the point made by someone about what markets see in this protectionism threat. They seem to see much more than simply the damage to the economies coming from trade. They might see a much broader phenomenon questioning all the multilateral order that we have lived in since the Second World War. And then of course the uncertainty about the Brexit negotiation and the uncertainty about the vulnerabilities of certain emerging market countries which are important. More generally, the uncertainty about global trade growth has extended beyond what we believed in March and that's why we have extended our forward guidance. At the same time, the economy, still data about the economy are not bad. There isn't any, as you've seen, any substantial worsening in the outlook. So that's the reason for this extension by seven months. The other part, the other question is about the slide in inflation expectations. Yes, the market-based inflation expectations. We are taking this seriously. We see that in fact the bulk of the inflation expectations now in the analysis between it, first of all, let me step back. First of all, there's no probability of deflation. There is a very low probability of recession. There are, based on various analysis, no threats of the anchor in inflation expectations. But certainly there is a considerable mass of distribution between 0 and 1.5% now. And so, and by the way, this fall, this slide in inflation expectations is not happening only in Europe. It's also happening elsewhere, although admittedly from higher levels, from higher starting levels. So this is, there must be some sort of global factor, but it's certainly something that we take into account in our policy. Mr. Karani? Hello, Karani from Reuters. Can you hear me well? Yeah. Could you give us your now customary summary of the discussion, especially interested in, you know, what were the contentious points, whether there was unanimity or descent. And the second question relates to Italy. As you are really well aware, there's now a new debate between the Commission and Italy on fiscal policies. I'm curious what's your message to the Italian government about fiscal policies. And I'm also curious your thoughts about the proposal in Italy to issue mini-bots which seem to be against the treaty and might be of great concern to you. Thanks. I'll answer first the first question. Now, if I have to give a broad summary of the discussion, I'll say it was centered on three key, three key concepts. First of all, there's still confidence in the baseline, but in the midst of increased and prolonged uncertainty. Long means that this uncertainty is not going to go out. In March, we might have hoped for a trade deal. We might have hoped for a decrease in uncertainties more generally. We might have hoped for a different evolution in the Brexit, but now it's different. So that's one, but there is some acknowledgement of the economy at the same time. So acknowledgement of risk. These risks have gained importance and gained projection. And we can go through these risks one by more analytically, but there's a third element that has characterized our discussion today. And it's also, you can find some words to this extent in the introductory summary, introductory statement. Really the readiness to act in case of adverse contingencies. I have said this on other occasions. This time, the discussion has become more, I would say, more granular in the sense that and you'll see this in the minutes of the meeting, in the sense that several members raise the possibility of further rate cuts. Other members raise the possibility of restarting the asset purchase program or further extensions in the forward guidance. And let me see, and the conviction that we should pursue our objective in a symmetric fashion was also expressed. By the way, let me add that in case these adverse contingencies were to happen, certainly fiscal policy will have to also come into consideration and play a fundamental role. Two wrinkles to this, but why don't I leave this to other questions and let me answer the second question. The second question is about Italy now. The commission has presented, has concluded that Italy must reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio and this opinion will go to the European Council. By then, the Italian government will produce, and that's what's been asked, will produce a medium-term plan for reducing debt-to-GDP ratios. Now I don't think, keep in mind that we are not the interlocutor, it's the commission and the European Council at this point, but I don't think it's going to be asked anything that would ask for a rapid decline in debt-to-GDP. We all know that to make the debt-to-GDP decline fast is impossible. So it was going to be a medium-term plan, which however has to be credible and credibility is measured by how it is designed, how it is planned and the actions that will follow from the plan itself. So I think that is what I think everybody is expecting. And now about the mini-bot, I mean I think I've answered this question in the past when the possibility was raised. They are either money and then they are illegal or their debt and then that stock goes up. I'll stop here. The reading that people have and markets have of these mini-bots doesn't seem to be very positive, but I'm only just stopping at what I said. It's either money or debt, and I don't think there is a third possibility. Claire Jones. Claire Jones, Financial Times. I'd just like to address the answer that you gave to the last question about the granularity of the discussion. Could you maybe fill us in a little bit more on under what circumstances would you cut rates? Under what circumstances would you restart the expansion of QE? And for my second question or issue, if you like, I guess, it looks as though the US Federal Reserve might start to cut rates soon as well. So could you maybe discuss the pros and cons in terms of how that measure would impact the Eurozone economy? Thank you. Let me say it's a reflection that has just started today in this meeting. We have not discussed which contingency would call for which instrument, and on the possibility of restarting the asset purchase program, let me say that we have now having abstained from purchasing bonds, considerable headroom anyway, and we also have the comfort of the law after the European Court of Justice gave explicitly broad discretion to pursue in a proportionate manner our objectives and comply with our mandate. The other instrument that was quoted was a possible decrease in interest rates. Well, let me just about the point I said in the introductory statement, it's quite important. There was a prolonged, there was a quite long discussion about whether the period of negative interest rates and whether especially the extension in the foreign guidance is affecting banks' profitability in a way that could hamper lending, and the answer, and the answer at least, of course, these are answers in the aggregate. Within the aggregate there are many different situations, but in the aggregate the answer was that so far we see no effect for a variety of reasons, which, however, it's not at all granted as a result if we were to further extend the foreign guidance or if we were to decrease interest rates, and that's why the introductory statement makes reference to mitigating measures in that case. The other question was whether the possible rate cut in some other jurisdictions might affect the European economy. Well, I think it's a question we've asked ourselves several times in the last few years, and I didn't say, I didn't speak about the financing conditions now. I should say that financing conditions with respect to the last meeting, monetary policy meeting, have become slightly, slightly tighter. And this is on the account of the fact that stock prices are now lower, and the euro has appreciated, the effective exchange rate of the euro has appreciated. And so I think that's the answer to your question. Mr. Chirada. I'm Paul Sholda from Le Fayne and Business Daily, Berteloginius, and I have two questions and both related to Le Fayne, if possible. I'm sorry, related to? Yes, two questions and both related to Le Fayne. Okay, yes, yes. I'm sure you have heard that here in Le Fayne we have a parliamentary investigation regarding our central bank work during class financial crisis. In your eyes, is it a political intervention into central bank work, and what do you think about it? And my second question is about Le Fayne's ambition to become a FinTech hub, a FinTech country. How it seems to you from a central bank position? We basically don't hear you. So the first question is, can you repeat, and the second is on FinTech hub, right? Yes, the second one. And the first one is about the fact that in our parliament we have parliamentary research regarding our central bank work during the last financial crisis. So in your eyes, is it a political intervention into central bank work, or it's not? What is your position? Let me say, I just can't comment about national developments of this sort, but I can tell you that Governor Vasilioskas is a very trusted member of the Governing Council, and his independence should be carefully protected. And when I say independence, I mean also personal independence. I think on this, the Governing Council is unanimous. By the way, you asked me about unanimity, yes, sorry I didn't answer before. The decision today was unanimous. And the second thing is about FinTech, yes, I did say this, by the way, in the brief courtesy speech that I had last night. It's a remarkable reality. It's the, I think the Lithuania is the second only to the UK as far as licenses for FinTech companies are concerned. So it is a major source of future growth for Lithuania. And of course, future also, future concern for, I mean, future attention in terms of supervision. But for example, what I learned in preparing for this visit is that Central Bank of Lithuania has created a sandbox where FinTech companies can actually test their innovations. You want to say something about that? Please. No. It's a very interesting thing. Yes, also, as probably you know, so FinTech is, of course, on our agenda, and the reason for the latest developments in FinTech area is related with the concentration of our banking markets, so I think we are quite successful. And of course, we have to keep in mind all possible risks which can come with new technologies, especially cybersecurity, and so on and so forth. So the question is a very complex question, but as I said, this is one of our strategic goals, you know, to develop this, this area of the business, and of course we see it as possibility for the future of Lithuania. Thank you. Ms. Bufaki? Mr. President, I have two questions. One is on the specific reference to the Euro area manufacturing sector has been hit by the headwinds. How far is this warring, and do you see also structural problems on the manufacturing industry and not just the international trade environment? And my second question is on the Taltras tree. We are going to have further details, but what we know so far with the interest rates that you announced, what is the reasoning behind it, and if you can give an assessment of the banking sector in Europe. Thank you. Yeah. No, I can't point to a specific structural reason. Certainly the manufacturing sector of and in general the European manufacturing countries are more exposed to external demand, and so a weakening trade growth affects the manufacturing sector more than other sectors. We had temporary factors before relating to specific industries, you remember. So we had a falling production, car production, we had other specific, but then there was a rebound. So the both the original factor and the reaction to them is either waned or is gradually waning. So it's just the potential exposure at the same time as I said, the service sector is still holding on that and investment is still moving forward and construction especially is also helped by the mild weather is also progressing with good numbers. But the key issue is how long, how long can the rest of the economy be insulated from a manufacturing sector that it keeps on being weak? And I think that's what the I think the governing council had in mind when they said they stand ready. They stand ready to reuse, to use again instruments that like a lower interest rate or restart in APP that had not been used for a while now. And but as I said, it's a reflection that started on the Teltro, yes, sorry. In deciding the shape and the price of Teltro, two sets of considerations came into play. One is that the Teltro should be a backstop. Banks over the coming three years will have a series of funding pressures coming from the necessity to issue bonds for complying with regulatory requirements. Coming from the need some banks at least coming from the need to pay back the previous Teltro. So all in all, the Teltro has the nature of being a backstop as far as banking liquidity is concerned. And so there is sort of an intent here of making sure that in the future we mitigate potential cliff effects as we may be seeing today. So there is a slight disincentive with respect to the previous Teltro. Also there is another intent there that is to minimize the possibility of car retrained because the goal of Teltros is to increase lending to the private sector, to the economy. On the other hand, the pricing is very generous altogether if compared with alternative sources of funding. So that is the logic behind this. Mr. Ferris. Thank you. Tom Ferris from the Wall Street Journal. Ms. Draggy, on your comments on negative interest rates and possible interest rate cards, other central banks like the Fed have been talking for the last few days about interest rate cards. Whereas the ECB's forward guidance still seems to be tilted towards hiking buyers. Is that correct? No. That the next move on interest rates is more likely to be an increase than a cut. And my second question was on the amount of policy space you have, if you do decide to cut following on from Claire's question, how much further can you go on interest rates given that you've now found that they're not so bad for the economy? And how much further can you go on QE considering how much you're already holding in terms of bonds? Thank you. Well, the answer to the first question is no. And the answer to the second question is that I think if there was someone who had doubts about our policy space, today's discussion really makes justice of any doubt about it. The policy space is there, and the exchanges we had today is that if adverse contingencies were to materialize, the governing council stands ready to act and use, as I've said many times, all the instruments that are in the toolbox. Mr. Barfield? Tom Barfield for Agence France Press. Mr. President, we've been talking a lot about specific measures the ECB could take against a background of uncertainty, but isn't it the case that the ECB's ability to counteract uncertainty is limited because most of it originates outside of the eurozone? Because what? Most of it originates outside of the eurozone. And the second question, it's been reported in France that you were awarded the Legion of Honor last week. Does the offer and your acceptance of the award signify that your service of France has been above and beyond that to the other member states? Thank you. Thank you. No, the answer to the second question is, first of all, I was pleased. The answer is no. It was an acknowledgement of the work I've done for Europe and for the eurozone. As far as the first question is concerned, what we have to do as monetary policy makers is to ensure that monetary policy remains accommodative and can support economic activity and convergence of inflation towards our objectives. Even when the world or external or internal contingencies worsen and make more difficult for the economy to continue growing at a sustainable pace and for inflation to grow and converge at a sustainable pace, sustained in a sustained manner. So that's the logic behind monetary policy, otherwise, whenever the source of a shock is external, there would be no point in having a monetary policy. Otherwise, there would be resignation, acceptance of defeat. And I've said many times that we are not at all accepting the current inflation rates or what the current expectations of inflation market-based expectations are telling us, because, of course, the survey-based expectations are continuing to be well-anchored in the long term. Mr. Haydnir? Luke Haydnir, Market News. Mr. Chair, on the subject of tel-trades, might the pricing maturity or lending benchmarks be adjusted if it becomes clear that they're not having the intended effect? And my second question was, it feels like we're further away than ever from returning to normal monetary policy. Have we actually reached the new normal? I mean, is the big question now for central banks not whether or for how long to use non-standard monetary policy tools, but rather in what combination and with what waiting? And the second question, you see, is the world more normal today than it was a year ago or three years ago? So monetary policy uses the instruments that are adequate to cope with the contingencies and the challenges that come out. And so now we say that monetary policy is non-conventional, that we are far away from normalization. We are far away from normalization because the rest of the world and the rest of the challenges are far away from being normal. And it's been like that now for many, many, many years following, first, the great financial crisis, then the sovereign debt crisis, then the Greek crisis. And now we have the threat of rising protectionism, the geopolitical dangers, threats that we see every day. We have developments in the eurozone itself that warrant this. I will answer your second question later on. I have to check one detail. In any event, there will be a press release coming out at the end of the press conference. Thank you. Mr. Nappres? I wanted to ask about money laundering cases in Baltic states. Those cases show that illegal activities are mostly international, while efforts to fight them are mostly national. Does ECB plan to introduce any countermeasures to fight money laundering more efficiently in eurozone? Well, as you know, the first steps towards, first of all, it's absolutely essential to coordinate anti-money laundering at the international level, across different countries. There are serious problems of communication within each country, between different agents, the supervisors, the judiciary, and then there are communication problems between different countries' supervisors, between different countries' authorities. What's been done so far is trying to give some soft power to the EBA. I think that we should go well beyond this and ideally create a European authority for anti-money laundering with powers, with powers, with jurisdiction that would empower the authority to overcome the obstacles that today hamper communication and an effective policy against anti-money laundering. Mr. Stumpf? Mr. Stumpf, from Espansion. I wanted just a clarification on the rate cut discussion. Was it related to the deposit rate facility or the EMEA rule? You mean the pricing of Deltrum? The discussion that the members of the governing council were proposing a rate cut. Was it about the deposit rate facility? It was about the deposit facility rate. Mr. Bucinowskas? Hello, Baltic News Service Lithuania, Vyutotas Bucinowskas. Mr. Draghi, if the European Central Bank decides to increase key interest rates, should Lithuania prepare itself for champion inflation, considering that Lithuania's economy is growing rather fast? Or should we expect that the growth of GDP of Lithuania will finally slow down and will be similar to that of the eurozone and there will be no problem and no need in special adjustments in the policy in Lithuania? Thank you. Thank you. This seems that the presence of risk, the rising threat of protection is the geopolitical factors that are weighing on the eurozone economic outlook would rule out any increase in interest rate. So that's exactly I think what I said before, that we ought to protect the financing conditions in the eurozone and maintain a very accommodative monetary policy, even in the face of challenges that may materialize in the future. Mrs. Laird? Thank you. Thank you. Laurie Laird, M.T. Newswire's two questions, Mr. Draghi. One is given the prolonged uncertainty that you have mentioned a number of times, how far are we from a whatever it takes moment? And the second part, also sort of specific to you, you have made great use of forward guidance perhaps better than some of your colleagues. Forward guidance is an art more than a science. How much does it depend on the central bank or giving that forward guidance for the markets to take it seriously? And I'm thinking ahead to a day where you may not be sitting in front of us. Thank you. First of all, the current conditions are not even comparable with the conditions we had way back seven years ago. That's about seven years, slightly less than seven years ago. We have the lowest unemployment rate in many, many, many years. We've seen growth in employment. So we have both a decline in unemployment and a growth in employment. We have basically by and large tight labor markets everywhere in the eurozone and rising wages. The overall economic situation is different. But certainly we have to be prepared. And even though, as I said, the governing council today confirmed the present baseline, also acknowledged the risks to this baseline and how these risks have prolonged themselves and have in a sense also increased. And therefore wanted the discussion really clearly stated the readiness to act in a less sort of general way that I have reported to you on other occasions, but more specifically more in a more granular fashion. The use of forward guidance, I agree with you, it's been quite effective. It's been quite effective. Now we've been using it for several years and it's been quite successful in steering market expectations and basically it's become the major monetary policy tool we have now. And what we've decided really, in a sense, protects the baseline from these risks for in this contingency. But if we are to see different challenges, then the governing council, as I said before, stands ready to use all its tools. And I don't think it's related to me, by the way. The forward guidance has been effective because the way it's been designed and the fact that the reaction function has been very well explained and in a sense going back to market expectations, the way what they are telling us is that, yes, the reaction function of the ECB has been well understood. Mr. Semelis? Augustin Hashem Ali-Sin for TV. You have been famously willing to intervene in 2012, quote, unquote, willing to do anything it takes to save the euro. If the new president, the next president of ECB is not willing to do anything it takes and we have such candidates, how do you think dangerous is that when and if a next crisis comes? Well, I mean, it's very difficult to foresee hypothetical events where you assume that the president of the ECB doesn't behave in a way to preserve the euro. It's just a hypothesis that I don't want to even consider. Thank you. Mr. Di Vittorio? And in any event, it's the governing council that decides. Don't forget. Lefonte is an economic and financial television. Reserve Bank of Australia cuts interest rates. Central Bank of India cuts interest rates. In the United States, Fed's funds discount an interest rate cut of a chance at 19-19. Let's change European Central Bank air monetary policy. First question. The second question is, if European Central Bank had grown an employment like objective, would it be better or worse of bad for a eurozone economy? Thank you. Thank you. We are talking about different jurisdictions, different economic environments. So central banks react to their economic situations. And for example, I think today's statement by the Bank of England saying that maybe rate hikes could be necessary in the near future. So each jurisdiction is different. And I believe that today's discussion shows exactly this point, that there is confidence in the present baseline, but also clear acknowledgement of the risks and the beginning of a granular discussion about what to do if adverse contingencies, what to do, one of which is exactly cutting interest rates further if adverse contingencies were to be realized. The other question relates to our mandate. It's not our task to decide our mandate. It's the legislator's task. Some time ago, however I can say it, some time ago, there was a research showing that regardless of what the mandate says, in other words, what has only price stability or employment as well. Central banks, by and large, have produced the same outcome in terms of price stability and employment. So whether in practice this is going to make a big difference, I don't know, because this research, by the way, is not recent. But still, if I look at our own experience, given the circumstances in which the last few years have evolved, all our monetary policy was constantly utilized for obviously the price, for price stability as our mandate requires, but also it was in the direction of creating more employment. If you look at the employment numbers, over the space of five years, 10 million new jobs have been created. And so do you really need a mandate for doing that, or it just happens because you do monetary policies oriented to price stability? I don't think ever so many jobs are being created in such a short time in this part of the world. And the final question goes to Ms. Weisbach, please. I'm not sure what that's about. Yeah, perhaps. Okay. My first question is about inflation expectations, because clearly despite all your efforts in the past, inflation expectations are close to record lows. Are you concerned about the potential shock which then would lead to a disenquering of those inflation expectations? Is it that the reason why you now mention all these instruments available? And the last question is a broader one, because there are some people who are suggesting that we are experiencing or witnessing currently a period which can be compared to the period before the Cold War started, like a division of the world between the West and the East. This time it's the U.S. and China. Are you concerned that, like, say, in 10 years' time, we're going to still have protectionism in place, tariffs in place, and more or less, are headed towards a clear division here? Thank you. Thank you. On inflation expectations, I think I've commented before, of course we are concerned, but we don't see signs of the anchoring, frankly. And we see no probability of deflation as well. That's why on other occasions I made the point of stressing that the governing council is not resigned to having a lower rate of inflation forever, not even for now, in fact. So all policies are oriented towards having a set of market-based expectations, because as I said, survey-based expectations continue to be anchored at a level of 1.6, 1.7 in the long term. There are also market-based expectations, which would be more consistent with the policies we have and with the convergence of inflation to our objective. And this drives me straight into answering your second question. Clearly, there is some disconnect here between what markets are seeing in the future and what people expect. And you see you compare surveys with market-based expectations, surveys expectations, both for growth as well as stock prices, earnings, inflation. The falling inflation expectations, I was saying, before happened also in other parts of the world, probably not by the same amount and certainly starting from higher levels, but it did happen. So markets seem to see, appear to see something bigger than simply trade disputes. And whether this is correct or not, certainly this is what they price in the future, in their future transactions. And certainly, so the broader issue, do they see a disruption of the order which goes beyond trade? I wish not. And certainly, but we have to be, from our side, what we have to do is to take this reading seriously and be prepared. Thank you. Thank you very much.