 At least five minutes of getting questions of the audience here, I didn't want to interrupt our lively debate and it's Daniel who for sure gets the floor first. I love this kind of pillow too. It lasted for one year. After one year, requirements, guidance. Then there is a tendency to ask risk by risk pillow too. After we learn through the crisis that all the risks are interrelated and we need holistic approach, I don't see how we deal with your sovereign risk in this risk by risk approach. I think the template of FEBA for risk by risk will have to have one more line and it will be indeed very visible. And my question is can we save a little bit of the 2015 pillow too by stopping precisely what Sabine is mentioning? We need CET-1 for pillow too requirement on guidance. We have learned through the crisis that pillow too subordinated that contingent capital is useless as going concern capital. This is for gun concern capital, this is for Elke. It was not used during the crisis before the state money was put, the state aid was put in the bank. So please, we should not do the same mistake a second time. So soon after it was done the first time. Couldn't agree more. Yeah, you are preaching in the church. Yeah. Yeah, do we disagree at one point on the stage? No. So we, yes, we are on the same camp than yet. But Nicolas is anxious to get the floor. I'm not too anxious but I cannot resist which is a different emotion. Danielle in a way introduced my question with her initial statement which is having sovereign risk in the framework. And my question is to the legislator, so primarily to Sven and Sir Jonathan, but Sabine you may want to interject. Having concentration risk in sovereign exposures, right, so home bias is best. I think most of us will agree this would be best addressed in pillar one measure. But can it be addressed at all with pillar two is my question. Okay, I will give you my opinion first, my personal opinion first. And then I would ask the others please. I think that we, I mean that it should be addressed in pillar one, yeah. In particularly the concentration risk part with regard to the capital, yeah. As I see that there will be a very difficult discussion, you know, with regard to risk weights, yeah. And the risk sensitivity, you know, which country gets which risk rate, etc. I think one should still do it, yeah. But the least, you know, the least it should be a concentration risk measure which we should have in pillar one. Now you can ask yourself, yes, if it is not there, pillar two says if you see risk which are not there, which are not covered by pillar one, do it in pillar two. But there are very clear coming from all sides and from many important stakeholders, law makers too. By the way, not only for sovereign but for AML risk and governance risk too. The very clear, the very clear message if the lawmaker in pillar one explicitly decided not to take up this risk, how can you dare as a supervisor to do this indirectly via pillar two? You are not a regulator, you are not a lawmaker, you are not, you know. We saw this, you know, in other cases where we had a lot of pushback and that is exactly the same for the sovereign. So there is a certain kind of tension between if the lawmaker discussed something and explicitly decided no, we will not touch it with capital requirements, with large exposure rules, yeah. How can we, yeah, as not being a regulator do something else? And now I will share something with you from last week's ICBS because I was on a panel there and I found myself in the midst of the Fed, Canadian, ASFI, Hong Kong, authority as well as Australia and I was the only one, yeah, from a supervisor authority who has no what is called regulatory powers, so no transformation of very basic principles via the supervisor into then supervisory rules, yeah, because we have a different system which I value very much, do not misunderstand me, but this is talking about institutional setup, you know. When everybody around you in the Barsal Committee says, well, we will do the transfer of Barsal mostly, you know, we will go to the lawmaker and they have a say in some, but we will do, we will set the details, et cetera, that is a very difficult issue and it links directly to your sovereign risk, by the way, Johnson, and then I think this will be the final round because this is really the final round for everybody to add. I'm not a legislator, I'm a private citizen and I don't think the Commission ever really considered itself a legislator, so I was never a legislator. I was a civil servant, but I agree entirely with what you say, we are not a country, we have a delicate institutional balance, we have the Maroney principle, get rid of it, the treaty if you want, but we haven't done so. It is infinitely preferable for Pillar 1 to take its responsibility and deal with these issues in the law and I agree entirely, if there is any suggestion that the lawmakers have considered something and not done it, then I think we are taking a big risk envisaging that it should be done at a Pillar 2 level. We can get away with that perhaps in a stable democratic country, we are stable, we are democratic, we are a union. Okay, many thanks, Sir Johnson. You know, I would just echo what you just said, I would associate myself with it and I would agree. Now that Andrea is moving from London, I would move EBA to Frankfurt and make that a unit of the SSM. I'm familiar with all the countries on your ICBS panel, I can't imagine having supervisors not able to change rules if they find that they're not working, having to go through some other party. I've never lived in an environment like you have to put up with. Well, first I have to say, when it came to the NPLs, I was, perhaps this was one of the moments when I was least proud of what our committee did concerning banking supervision. I have to say that, I was very unhappy, I couldn't stop it because we had no majority, as Greens as you know, we are a very pro-European group but we are not in a majority position, we are a small group in the parliament. So anyway, what you did with your addendum, even after all the quarrel, you achieved a great deal. So therefore you and you helped us solving a problem which at that moment wouldn't have been solved. So therefore in a certain way what you have said now could easily be transferred to the issue of NPLs and then questioning the legitimacy of what you did in this field. I would not do this, I think you simply did your job and therefore I still believe that your mandate and the law, so CID, CRR clearly gives you the pillar two powers and they are formulated for good reasons in that open way and as long as the lawmaker doesn't change that formulation and we didn't, you have all the rights and the obligation. If you see additional rights, additional risks to take action and there is no limitation and if we are not happy with you doing your job then it's our responsibility to regulate it in the law. Until we don't, please do your job and don't be scared by people who do not want that certain issues are tackled. So that will be my clear view on this and beyond that politically of course you said it, when EDIS is now being somehow renegotiated then of course this issue will politically be dealt with again. So there's a link and there we have an opportunity to tackle at least the concentration risk side but as it's not yet in the law you have all the possibilities and there's of course also a link to the internal models and the trim operation because as we all know the internal models look at sovereign risk and therefore there's also a level playing field issue beyond the pillar to issue there's a second lever which you might have in your hands and yeah and I finish here but I think be bold and don't make yourself weaker than what we have voted in the law despite some politicians being unhappy about it. Let us see. Eke, your last. At this high level to be the last one speaking is quite challenging. I think let me start with saying there is no risk-free asset this holds true for sovereign risk too so it needs to be reflected I'm fully with you pillar one is the place to go and not pillar two because you need to sneak it in. The second part is clearly there is also quite a broad field of pillar two now you could also say in starting that debate you might trigger the first part of it so I would agree if it's explicitly not in pillar one it's difficult to get it in pillar two but if you try to push it in pillar two you might trigger the pillar one debate let's just start that way but it's not just about sovereign we have a number of other issues and we have a number of issues to deal with we can start with my favorite topic IFRS nine implementation and the like so we need to address all of this but I'm very sure it's when I wish that the SSM in the next five years is as agile as level playing field as bold and as outspoken as it has been in the first five years and I think there they have to fill fairly large shoes in a not in a literal sense and they have to fill very broad shoulders also not in a literal sense you are totally correct well I think I did my work today by getting a list together what we should look like what we should do yeah in order to give it to the next chair and the next vice chair for next year and so that everybody knows yeah what are the expectations the challenges ahead I would like you to still stay here and and you too because I have to say some final words Daniel yeah I mean this is it ladies and gentlemen and almost at least because they are still the buffet yeah so it's it's only me between yeah you and the buffet and it will not take long yeah so just so don't worry yeah I would like to thank all participants here on this panel it was really a great discussion and and many many things for your openness your frankness and and I give it back to you Sven it's not only us having to be bold the lawmaker has to be bold too