) sources : calculated based on microdata on wage agreements in germany, italy, spain and the netherlands. data fort the netherlands is based on the database maintained by the dutch employer association awvn. for italy the data comes from istat ( contratti collettivi e retribuzioni contrattuali ), for spain from the ministerio de trabajo y economia social and for germany from bundesbank. notes : experimental euro area wage tracker includes weighted average of germany, italy ( data from july 2021 to september 2022 ) spain and the netherlands. the orange line shows the weighted average of wage increases in agreements that have not yet expired, weighted by the number of workers covered by these agreements. the green lines show weighted averages of wage increases in agreements that were concluded in 2022, weighted by the number of workers covered by these agreements. latest observations : last agreements signed in nl es, it and de in march 2022 chart 9 shows the expected momentum in inflation dynamics, as captured by the april 2022 median results from the survey of monetary analysts. [ 8 ] the left panel shows the headline hicp, while the right panel shows the core hicpx indicator. compared to the 6 per cent inflation realised over q2 2021 to q1 2022, the coming twelve months ( q2 2022 to q1 2023 ) are projected to see cumulative headline inflation at 3. 7 percent. in the subsequent two years ( q2 2023 to q1 2025 ), inflation per year is projected to be slightly below 2 per cent. in essence, chart 9 indicates that one more year of inflation momentum above target is expected by market analysts before returning to the target level. in relation to hicpx, the next twelve months are projected to see cumulative core inflation at 2. 3 per cent, while core inflation over q2 2023 to q1 2025 is expected to average 1. 9 per cent per year. chart 9 realised and expected level of hicp and hicp excluding energy and food ( percentages ) source : survey of monetary analysts. note : expectation is based on the median from the april 2022 survey of monetary analysts. in terms of the evolution of longer - term inflation expectations, charts 10 - 12 present a range of indicators. in relation to the survey of professional forecasters, chart 10 conveys two messages. first, over the course of 2021, there was a significant re - anchoring of longer -

that impact on institutions ’ viability including, but not restricted to, those factors which cannot be captured by automated ratings. this relates not only to traditionally qualitative elements, such as internal governance and risk controls, but also to the assessment of institutions ’ risk levels. this institution - specific qualitative assessment uses up most of the supervisory resources in the srep. if this were not done, too many aspects that are key for the viability of institutions could not be factored in. think, for example, of very “ soft ”, yet extremely important things, such as the risk culture and the general spirit of the institution. furthermore, we do not just conduct quantitative and qualitative assessments separately. we work hard to combine both approaches in our methodology by bringing together the strengths of both concepts. let me explain briefly the structure of this srep methodology. the slide shows that it consists of four main elements : 1. business model assessment, 2. internal governance and risk management, 3. risks to capital, and 4. risks to liquidity and funding. all four elements are assessed and rated. they feed into the overall srep assessment that forms the basis for srep decisions. of these four srep elements, only the internal governance assessment is purely qualitative, while all other elements are assessed as a combination of quantitative anchor points and qualitative assessments, based on supervisory judgement. in order to ensure consistency in the assessments while allowing the responsible supervisor to tailor those assessments to institutions ’ idiosyncrasies, we follow a so - called “ constrained judgement ” approach that limits the extent to which judgement can push qualitative results towards a predefined range around the anchor points. one example of the combination of quantitative and qualitative supervision is our pillar 2 addon quantification methodology. although at first glance a purely quantitative concept, qualitative elements play a key role in this methodology. under the so - called “ block 1 ” of element 3, we assess risk levels and risk controls for credit, market, operational risk and interest rate risk in the banking book. the respective risk controls are assessed in a purely qualitative manner, and then combined with risk - level assessments that consist of a combination of quantitative anchor points and a holistic, judgement - based assessment. in addition, we factor in, under blocks 2 and 3, the banks ’ internal capital adequacy assessment process ( icaap ) figures, including internal stress