I have two questions in relation to the changes to Article 192 that were made in recent years - specifically, these questions relate to paragraphs 3, 3a, 3b and 3c, which cover the LGD for derivatives 1) For a derivative (with zero risk-mitigating effect) with a positive EUR 100million market value for the insurer, collateralised with EUR 100million in cash would have a EUR 9 million, EUR 8 million and 45 million, if captured by paragraphs 3, 3a and 3b respectively. This is due to the 50% multiplier applied to the value of the collateral in the formulae in paragraphs 3, 3a and 3b. In contrast, a derivative with a positive EUR 100million market value for the insurer, collateralised with EUR 100million in cash would have zero LGD if captured by paragraph 3c. Is the intent that, for instance, fully cash-collateralised cleared derivatives (captured by paragraph 3) have a higher LGD than those that are categorized under paragraph 3c, when the market value of those derivatives is non-zero? 2) Paragraphs 3, 3a and 3b all use the “value of the assets held as collateral” in the formulae, whilst paragraph 3c uses the “risk adjusted value” of the collateral, which will therefore haircut the value of the collateral, based on its risk. Is it the intent that a non-cleared derivative under paragraph 3b would have the same LGD, irrespective of whether its collateralised with cash / EU government bonds, or collateralised with sub-investment grade credit? Or should paragraphs 3, 3a and 3b also be using the “risk adjusted value” of the collateral in their formula?