Thank you.
My second question deals directly with the Infrastructure Bank.
I would like to understand the relevance of one aspect. My understanding is that $15 billion that was already earmarked for infrastructure is being taken away and placed in a bank to serve as leverage and to attract private funding.
If the interest rates were at 24%, I would have understood the desire to bring together the largest players around a table to try to negotiate the best possible rates. However, under the current circumstances, infrastructure projects will be financed with private funding that requires a 7% to 9% return, as Mr. Sabia said, when the government could very well finance the same project at a lesser cost.
Where is the real benefit for taxpayers?