Véronique Bédague est auditionnée sur la situation et les perspectives en matière de logement

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen deputies, thank you first of all for receiving me this morning. I think that among you there are many experts, so I will try to highlight in my remarks what is changing, what is in the process of changing, and perhaps also what I take away from the past three years of crisis. For us, it was a perfect crisis in the economic sense, meaning that everything came together. First, we forgot, but we had a big inflation surge, 15% in 18 months starting from 2022, so construction prices increased by that amount at the very beginning of the sequence, which led to a general increase in the prices of housing delivered by 8%. So that was a huge first shock. And then obviously the second huge shock, if you please move to the corresponding slide, was the increase in interest rates. And again, it's less the actual level of these interest rates than the speed of the increase. In just 18 months, our clients simply lost 30% of their purchasing power. That's enormous, absolutely enormous, and it's extremely brutal. You know, rates are calming a bit; the inflection point was June, and we saw renewed interest from our fellow citizens in real estate starting in June. September was quite calm, but we feel it again because simply, in 18 months, you know my conviction: I think there are many life stories that have been blocked for young people and for all those who needed to move. So for us, this is an extremely violent shock, and it translated in 2023 and 2024 into sales of housing to individuals that collapsed. I've put a long series because I find these long series interesting: it's worse than 2008, let's be honest. In 2008, there was a financial crisis, the shock was incredibly violent, decisions were made, and the market recovered the next year. Here, we are at sales levels of individual housing that are the lowest in 30 years. The crisis is extremely violent. Obviously, it first affects developers; the charm of our business is that 18 months later it affects the construction industry, and 4 years later it affects the French. It's a slow fuse but inexorable. So this low sale of individual housing in 30 years, on the right I've put a graph where we add block sales, essentially sales we make to social landlords. So you see that in 2024 we will produce together about 95,000 housing units. We need to add what social landlords produce themselves, plus sales of individual houses, which are in complete collapse. So I can tell you now that in 2024 there will be fewer than 200,000 housing units, houses, social housing that will be reserved and thus able to be put into production in the coming years. We will fall below 200,000, and that's done, we are there. And these 200,000 are deliveries in 4 years, so it's really the gravity of this housing crisis, its length, its inexorable nature, and its magnitude. That's why, you know, for two years I've been saying that this crisis is major, that we really need to stop it because it will have effects on the French that will be extremely violent. It's starting, but it's only the beginning, and things are already inscribed in time.

Then perhaps I asked myself this weekend while preparing this hearing, what happened these two years that passed, perhaps in the exchange we could have with the executive. And I think, and you understood, that the dialogue did not really get started. And if I go back and ask myself why, I think it's important to ask why. I think there were, maybe there still are, three convictions that were opposed to us, either explicitly or implicitly, which are the three I've listed on my PowerPoint. The first conviction, and I think it was clearly stated at the opening of the CNR, that's why we had invited the Chief Economist of the Treasury, is that in this country, we don't need many new homes. We heard something between 100,000 and 200,000. Well, if I tell you a bit perversely, if the need is at 100,000 to 200,000, we'll see what that really gives. We're there. So there was really this idea that there was no need. It wasn't shared in Parliament, I say that right away. When I came into these walls, there wasn't that conviction. But in the dialogue we could have with the executive, and it wasn't shared by all ministers obviously, but I think what dominated was the idea that there was no need for new housing in this country. There was a second conviction, and this one was never expressed, but when I look back, it was certainly there deep down: the crisis will do good. I'll put it a bit short and caricatured: it will cleanse the market and cause prices to drop by 25%, and that will resolve the market, the market will do its job and resolve the crisis. And I think this conviction is consistent with the first proposition. If you think there is not much need for new housing and the market is balanced, then effectively if demand withdraws, by definition prices fall. That's basic economics. If you think there are not enough homes, competition for housing, then prices won't fall. But the issues will be resolved by flows; there will be fewer flows. And thirdly, we were told for weeks, months, that housing was a very expensive policy, that it was the first place to make savings. We never managed to discuss the fact that, on the other hand, taxes on the housing sector kept increasing during the period. And these are government figures, not me in my back kitchen. These figures are from the housing accounts and are published. Between 2017 and 2022, there were 22 billion euros in additional taxes on housing. So I think there was deep down this mindset that honestly, there were movements, I think it must be recognized, but not the first movement that was made: the strengthening of the PTZ in its amount. That's a huge effort from the state, you'll see it in the accounts, it's extremely useful. We clearly see that our most modest fellow citizens need this PTZ today to have access to co-ownership. So that's really important. But you remember, at the same time, this PTZ was concentrated on dense areas, so when you are in a non-dense area, you don't have it, and you are a modest household, you only have the choice of rehabilitating something old, which is not so simple and rather costly. And above all, and this we can discuss, I understand what was done: we completely removed the PTZ on individual houses. I've had the opportunity to say it here, I understand what was done, I understand the rationing of land. I just say that sociologically, the individual house was what allowed people in social housing to have access to property. An individual house, as you imagine, is about 20 to 30% cheaper than a collective apartment. It's not the same rules; a CMIS does not obey the same rules as a developer. These houses are farther from city centers, and so they were much, they were the only ones accessible for purchase for some people leaving social housing. So I don't know if we should continue like this, but in any case, we need to find a solution. We can't just say we stop the PTZ completely on individual houses without treating the flows deep down and the access to property that these houses allowed.

Second subject, I'll come back to it because I don't know why I can't make myself heard on this, yet the figures are on the table. Rental investment aimed at families is overtaxed in this country. It's just overtaxed. There is no profitability. We need to say it here. So I hear the criticism of Pinel, but Pinel was just a band-aid. It was what allowed us not to address the fact that the taxation on rental income from renting to families was too high. So I'm fine with no more Pinel, but then let's deal with the issue. And this issue, I remember Élisabeth Borne said at the CNR that we would take this issue head-on and it would be presented in the next finance bill. That was last year, not this year. I'm telling you, you need to deal with it. I don't know how, but do what you have to do, but you must address this issue. You must not ignore it. You know as well as I do that issues we refuse to look at come back very violently in the ballot box. So I think that deep down, a certain number of measures that were not designed for this but were taken have aggravated the cycle. The withdrawal of Pinel at the time when the market was withdrawing was deadly, let's say it. So after that, I don't know what the conviction of this committee is. Do we need new housing in this country? Do we not need new housing? Is the housing situation tense? We think it is. You received Emmanuel Cosse yesterday, you see that the demand for social housing is growing, including from people who were not in social housing until now. Rental housing is gasping, let's say it. The situation for students is complicated. You know, we have student residences, they are 98% full on June 30. Parents today, let's be clear, are taking leases starting in June to be sure that their child, when they arrive in certain metropolitan cities, is sure to have their school. That's terrible, I find it terrible. So from my point of view, but I think you are all in the field, these issues come up to you. The housing situation today is very tense. I want to tell you that given what we have reserved this year, all together, it will be even more tense in the years to come. The housing sector is a very slow kinetic sector. Then, the crisis has not led to a real drop in prices, at least not of the magnitude that was probably expected. Don't forget incidentally that in the existing market, there are price drops due to the DPE. Today, when you have two apartments 100 meters apart, same configuration, good and bad DPE, prices are very different. It can be 10 to 15%, it's very violent. So there is that too appearing in existing prices. And to my great regret, I don't see how new housing prices can drop much because one way to lower prices is to produce, to offer housing to our fellow citizens. So, housing prices I recall here because I think it's interesting to restate in UF. Here is roughly how the cost is distributed: land is 15%, construction cost is 50%, so land we'll talk about in a moment. Land is a subject that fascinates me personally. I think it's good that there is a market and price setting by the market. I think land takes on a particular value, it's becoming a rare good. We need to treat it as a rare good. Éric Lombard said something at the USH that struck me and seems extremely accurate. He said, 'Véronique, land will become the great affair of the 21st century.' If we do what we say, we are very careful about land consumption, there will be less buildable land. These lands will naturally increase in value, and if we are not careful, the price of housing may increase further. So land will really become an important subject on which we will need to find modes of regulation. Construction cost is about 50%. So what we see at the moment is obviously a slight drop in raw materials, but wages are increasing, and I don't see why wages wouldn't increase in construction companies. That's how the economy works. Marketing costs at 5%, taxes at 25%. Let's say it here, you know I love this type of subject, 25% of the final price of housing sold in UF is VAT, essentially, but not only. There are also transfer taxes, equipment taxes, urban planning taxes. So it's a quarter of the price in taxes today. That's why it brings in revenue to the state. And then the developer's margin, I'm at the best case at 5%, which is not much. I'm telling you, for a business where we take risks, it's low, 5%. That doesn't put us, and you always find the developer's margin too high. I invite you to look at what the typical margins of a typical company are, you'll see that they are much higher than a developer's margin today.

So from my point of view, conviction, I think honestly the rate cut helps us, it breathes better, but the rate cut will not solve the problem we face. The rate cut, we could discuss it at length. I've read many papers, we won't return to 1%. We will be somewhere when the rate cut is finished, at best at 2.5%, probably more around 3%. The French were indebted at 4.2% at the beginning of the year, they are at 3.66%. You see that what remains to be done in terms of mortgage rate cuts is not that significant. So it won't be enough, but it's picking up slowly, meaning we feel from our clients a real renewed interest in homeownership. I don't know if you've seen these analyses, but there was a survey a few weeks ago: 25% of young couples are giving up having a child at the moment because they can't find housing to welcome a child. That's huge, one in four. So what is at a standstill today? I'm not talking about Airbnb or various tax niches. What is at a standstill today is the segment of individual investors who are simply buying a home to house people who are not tourists, who are students, people leaving home, families. That sector is at a standstill. There are not many left. There are some who love real estate and think well, real estate is better than financial assets because at least I can see it. But this sector's engine is completely stopped. It's completely stopped simply because the French, advised by their bankers, are quite rational. They look for the highest net return, and today it's really not real estate that gives that best return. You see, we made a small graph to measure the attractiveness of various investments. We compared simply a stock and its dividend, a bond coupon, and a rental income from real estate investment. The rent is the purple one in the middle, it has the lowest return today. Those who buy real estate no longer expect capital gains. There was a time when you remember, we bought real estate, we accepted a lower return thinking it's fine, when we sell we'll make a capital gain. That's no longer there. There is no more leverage effect because today when you borrow, the rate of your loan is higher than your return, so it costs you. And it remains a risky investment, let's say it. You have to manage it, there are risks of non-payment, and then the tax treatment, you are really well taken care of, let's say it. So it's an investment that today is no longer an investment when it's classic, meaning it serves to house a student, a young adult, a family. It's really not an investment recommended by your bankers. It's normal, it's purely rational. The return is too low. So we amused ourselves by doing some simulations. This is the next slide. When you are, and I really leave you with these simulations, they've been around for 18 months, I leave them everywhere, no one ever tells me I'm wrong. No one comes back saying you miscalculated. It's just the reality of what is happening today. Today, we gave you several cities, but it's the same. Today, when you invest, for example in Paris, in a home that you rent out, the public levies are about 48% of your rental income. And I'm not including property tax, that's only social contributions. So it's 50% of your income. I remind you that when you receive dividends and bond coupons, they are taxed at 30%. And that's the first formula when you are taxed at 30% income tax. The next slide, if you are taxed at 45% income tax and you pay the IFI, in that case the levy is 64%. And I'm not counting property tax again. The figures are incontestable. So this engine is stopped. We were told for a while it's fine because big private institutional investors will take over. That's not the case. Big private institutional investors in housing demand returns much higher than what individuals demand. So they have not returned to the market. Only social landlords have really done a remarkable job during these two years, I want to salute them here. They really mobilized, all of them, big and small, across the territory, to buy housing to do their job. But they are the only ones present in block purchases at the moment. Regarding block sales, I don't know what Emmanuel Cosse told you yesterday. I was at the USH last year, I must say that the USH last year was the only moment I regained energy because there was energy in the social movement, a real desire to do. I found them much more cautious this year. The USH summit was last week in Montpellier, they are much more worried about debt, by definition like all of us, they are affected by interest rates and the debt burden. I think the social movement, Caisse des Dépôts, Action Logement, and all social landlords will be less present in 2025 under financial constraints that were not there in 2023 and 2024 when they were extremely present and mobilized. So that for me is an additional risk.

Despite the easing of rates, there remain difficulties. I told you earlier: resistance of land to decline for the reasons I said, long rates are falling but will remain much higher than before the crisis. I have a real regret. I think one way to ease the housing crisis is to give a vision to the territory, to tell each territory, how to give a place geographically to each territory. I'm ending up as an old lady of 60, I find that the policy of regional planning is perhaps an old tool but still has many advantages. I think it's good to show to all the territory, to all cities, that they have a place on the territory and to help them take that place if it's not so natural. And there is no objective. So we'll see a little what happens in the coming weeks, we will obviously be very attentive. But I think it would not be completely useless to find a consensus. It's rather to you I'm addressing, on what is the need for new housing, on which territory, and why. I think that despite everything, it would be much easier, including for mayors who are very alone facing requests for building permits today, to do what they need to do on the territory if there is a national consensus on what we should build and where. Last point, these are the curves of housing starts. You see that we were at 400,000 in 2018, we will gently end up around 200,000. And that's done, we won't go back. These are the reservations made in recent years. For the record, between 400,000 and 200,000 housing units, there are 8 billion euros of VAT that collapse. 400,000 housing units, 200,000 housing units, there are 8 billion euros of VAT that disappear from the state's accounts. And obviously all that will have consequences on the territories because there are jobs behind. Obviously we work essentially 99% with small or medium-sized construction companies across the territory. I assure you they are today at very great risk. So facing the crisis, a quick word on Nexity if you allow. We unfortunately had to carry out a PSE. We produced about 20,000 new homes at cruising speed, now we will produce 14,000. So I launched a PSE of 500 people. It's a deep regret for me because I think we need these skills to build housing, and these young people who leave us will not come back. They will go into sustainable development, we will not find them to restart the housing machine. That will be something too because many skills have left the sector. I told you, the statistics of failures by activity, what strikes us a lot today is the very great fragility of the small construction companies we work with. It only takes one unpaid invoice by another developer and these companies fall on a cash flow issue. I assure you that happens a lot to us these days, very good quality companies that find themselves facing a debt they cannot recover and leave the site because they no longer have cash. So you will see this more and more in the coming weeks in your territories. So we have completely transformed ourselves. I have completely restructured my company to be much more territorial, much closer to mayors, to what we can do on the territory, to be multi-product, to work with them on what they want to do. We have set up centers of expertise because I think we have our job to do to make housing affordable. I cut every cost I can because every cost I cut, I find it in the price of housing. We have greatly simplified the hierarchical lines, made very significant cost reductions. And we work a lot, you know, we have done a lot in the past on construction methods, how to build. There are solutions to do it cheaper but with very high quality 2020 standards. Today in our companies, it's really at the heart of the system. We need to produce better and cheaper. And we have relied on, and it's the offer you have probably seen in the territories because it's a completely territorialized campaign, we have partnered with LCL, we rely obviously on the state PTZ, LCL makes its own offer of 20,000 euros of PTZ financed by LCL if you are in RE2020, so for the 9 it's still true, 20,000 euros of zero-rate loan if you are under 30, and we add 50,000 euros of zero-rate loan. So we make an effort on our prices to allow a certain number of our fellow citizens to have access to housing because I really think there is a strong desire. Sometimes also our fellow citizens, it's not so simple. They also need help to calculate what they can do. What we are doing at the moment with the help of LCL, a campaign that is working very well, we have about twice as many contacts in one week than a normal week, with a real desire from our fellow citizens to have access to property, to be able to move, to start their lives, often to leave their parents' home. So this deep down is a good sign, this desire of our fellow citizens to find a normal housing path, as we have lived, we found normal. Thank you all for listening.

I think simplification is always useful, but it won't be enough at the moment.

I will respond a little more slowly because I have the impression I hurt the microphone. I have the impression I hurt the person who asked the question, which was not at all the intention. But since you told me 1 minute 30, I concentrated. It's absolutely nothing personal or political. I am not here to do politics, I am the president of Nexity, and that's enough for my day. So if someone felt hurt, there was absolutely no intention, I want to say that. So for 1 minute 30, I can't answer all these questions. What I can tell you is that we really like the 'Cœur de Ville' program. In all the cities where it was deployed, we saw a new demand for housing because it makes the cities even more attractive. So I think these programs are extremely useful on the territory. They also contribute to a policy of regional planning.

I understand your question. For just a few seconds, it's always a few seconds. So if I answer you briefly, don't think it's not seconds. Just on Nexity, my market collapsed by 40% in 18 months. Honestly, how do you want me to tell you? I had to make decisions. It's not sustainable for a company. You cannot have a production apparatus that is too large relative to the market. So obviously I worked with the unions on the PSE, it's a very difficult process. On the issue of multiple property owners, I think the problem is different. The rental market is suffering from a lack of supply, not from retention. The figures show that the number of rental properties has decreased. The problem is the lack of profitability for small landlords. They are selling their properties because they are taxed too heavily. That's what I tried to explain. The tax burden is too high. On the contradiction between tax niches and budget deficit, I think we need to be intelligent. The state loses 8 billion euros in VAT because we are building 200,000 fewer homes. That's a loss of revenue. So if we could build more, we would have more tax revenue. It's a virtuous circle. The solution is not to add more taxes but to create conditions for production. Thank you.

Nevertheless, there are extremely regulated procedures. We worked with them for five months and they agreed to the conditions of the PSE last week, so yes, obviously that was worked on with our union organizations, which, moreover, as I have said several times, did a remarkable job by helping us also to deal with the most complicated issues. I still have a half-day or more. Yes, yes, go ahead on the multi-owners. I have no particular opinion on that from where I am. The essential thing is that there are people who can be housed. I have no... and it takes private rental housing. So who is the owner? For me, it can be large institutional investors. You remember in the 1990s we had large institutional investors who were owners. After that, it ended with the sale by the unit, which some mayors still remember fondly. I was at the City of Paris at the time; it was very complicated. So this market of private rental housing needs to be fed. Social housing cannot do everything.

I, I think that the Airbnb issues must be dealt with, but they have two sides. They are naturally more profitable, rents are not controlled, it's paid in advance, and on top of that they have a tax niche. So you are right, it's a jackpot. But I tell you that just because you align the taxation of Airbnb with that of a classically rented home to a family, you will not... the profitability will remain the same. Finally, investors will not choose between... when they buy housing, they will not think 'do I do Airbnb or classical?' They will say that since classical is not profitable... The figures are on the table. If we are wrong on the figures and if the taxation is not confiscatory, tell us, because we will tell our clients. They will choose between that and a bond, shares. There are plenty of other financial products available today. So just because you lower the tax advantage of Airbnb does not mean that rental to families will restart. Well, I don't know what you want to do, but in any case there will not be a natural pipe between those who do short-term rental – they do it with profitability rates in mind. So you must not think that treating the subject will allow you to treat the second. You must treat both at the same time. Thank you very much, Madam President.

I will give a very different answer from the one I gave earlier. All the rework on standards is welcome, but in the moment it will really not be enough where we are. I would like to tell you that it will be okay, but no. I would add that the fact that the sector has stopped is 8 billion euros in revenue that did not go into the state's coffers. Yes, but the moratorium, well, it can have effects but very, very slowly, very, very slowly. There is a need for a spark. Something needs to be done, otherwise it will pick up slowly, slowly. I really... Thank you, Madam President.

I think it's not really up to me to imagine tax measures. I think the administration is perfectly equipped for that, as long as the instruction is given. But we will have to do something. I maintain that on this taxation... Pinel was a simple thing; it came to compensate quite brutally for this over-taxation. It is over-taxation when you collect more than half of the income; you start to enter over-taxation. So I don't know what the government has in store in the PLF; we will see soon, but this subject must be dealt with. As for Nexity, you know it without doubt – the whole company, myself first, but the whole company carries this conviction on ecology. I have never questioned the ZAN; I have always said that it needed to be worked on. I think we have an interest in working rather and building housing where there is already public transport – that is very important for these issues today. And you also know that we have a trajectory aligned with 1.5 degrees; it's a real effort, it's at the heart of my company. I do it out of conviction, I also do it because I think it allows me to gain market share. That is, when we sell to social landlords, for example, when we sell to individuals they are less sensitive, but when we sell to social landlords they are extremely sensitive to the ecological quality of what we deliver. We have a brand called Héritage, which is a brand of urban regeneration. And you know that we have longevity on this; we have done very beautiful things both in renovating and in building new in Le Havre, Dijon, Montpellier, we have them almost everywhere. And to tell you, in my commitment committees – that is, the projects I have studied at Nexity since the beginning of the year – 30% of these projects are urban regeneration projects. And you also know that we won a tender from Carrefour to renovate. I think this is very useful: 72 Carrefour sites, half city center, half periphery at the entrance of towns. And I think that is really our job of tomorrow: renovating a Carrefour or a Carrefour site at the entrance of a town, where the mayors have already put public transport. You know well that the mayors have ended up feeding transport. We can make neighborhoods, we can de-artificialize, we can make neighborhoods where people have access by public transport to the city center. Really, I think that is really our tomorrow, the core business of promoters like us. I am convinced that the Nexity promoter that enters the crisis is not the same as the one that comes out of the crisis. Thank you very much.

I think that today there are conditions that are better than six months ago. Banks really want to make real estate loans. I saw in Montpellier a large billboard in the center of Montpellier of a bank that said we continued to make real estate loans during the crisis and we want to make them. And that is really noticeable. And I repeat to our fellow citizens, they want to have access to property for many reasons. They feel more reassured being a homeowner, sometimes also when they reach retirement. Our objective in our operation was to say: I wanted to be able to tell the most modest first-time buyers, when they were in the private rental sector, that I am able to offer you a home of the same size as the one you rent at a monthly payment equal to your rent or close to your rent. That was what I tried to do. And to do that, we had to work with LCL, hence the adjustment we made on the zero-interest loan. And for that, I rely massively on the state device – it's the state that finances the PTZ – so it's really anchored on the state device, and with the help of LCL for the most modest of our fellow citizens, we are able, when we add all these offers, to bring the rate close to 1%. But that was the path we had to take to meet the demand of our clients. So yes, I think that all partnerships change over the years in my business. There are many more partnerships, including for example with what we used to call our suppliers; we are truly partners, and with banks we need to be more and more so. Thank you very much, Madam President.

On the first question, I will not pronounce on the measure. I think there are many things circulating. I think there are teams at Bercy who are capable of defining the right device to achieve the right objective as long as they are given the instruction. But it must be a quick measure because time is really starting to run out. On the more technical measure, perhaps Fabrice will be better equipped than me. Go ahead on the question of institutional investors and reserve requirements. Our understanding of the subject is that it is primarily a European framework that determines it, so it is Solvency 2, Solvency 3, Solvency 4, so it is a matter for at least Europe. Obviously we have the feeling that what are called real assets, of which real estate is a part, are treated somewhat punitively in the prudential schemes imposed on insurers and banking institutions. So we would obviously be in favor of easing the prudential obligations concerning real estate to allow these large operators to do a bit more housing. That said, we always come back to the problem of profitability. That is, these are people who collect savings funds and have the mission to invest them with the best risk-return couple. And today it must be noted that real estate does not present a sufficiently attractive risk-return couple for these large investors to choose to return, regardless of the prudential obligations they face. So it is undoubtedly a path, but it must be complemented by other devices to really produce an effect. Thank you very much.

I think that we must be very careful about land consumption. At a given moment, it seems like an easy solution, but to start building far from areas where there is public transport, in the end, it is very complicated. So I understand that mayors need more pragmatism and flexibility in the application of the ZAN. I believe there have been a lot of works done in the Senate, a lot of works done here... No, you say no... But I had the impression that there were reflections in Parliament that allowed the application of the ZAN to be made acceptable to local elected officials. I find that they all say no, so no. Well, some part. I think that despite everything that has happened in recent years, it has forced us operators, with the mayors, to keep other types of promotion. We have become interested in urban regeneration, for example, which is much more complicated to do, much riskier, which requires much stronger land price reductions, but I think it's really good that we do this kind of thing. We renovate brownfields, we renovate city center buildings. I think we must not lose that drive on urban renovation. It is less carbon-intensive, it allows building housing in places where there are public transport, it also beautifies the city. I assure you there are times when I photograph the buildings we have renovated and restructured; it's really very beautiful. So I think we must not let go of this rope of developer development. Thank you very much.

I think that on this last point, for that matter, it's really the job of the State. There is a Planning Commissioner, that's really the long-term projections of this country. That's really not a promoter's job to do that, frankly. On your other question, Fabrice, maybe. Go ahead on the question of parameters related to rental investment and especially the return. We have talked a lot about taxation, so the net super return of the investor, which is what he looks at on the bottom line. There are fundamentally two ways to approach the problem. We can indeed reason by comparison with the profitability of other asset classes, and so there could be a first path that would be to align the taxation of real estate investments with the rules of the PFU, compensated by an increase of the PFU on other asset classes to offset the fiscal losses that could cause, but that would seem quite legitimate to propose. And there is another way to bring real estate closer to common law, which is to allow property owners to amortize a certain number of things, i.e., to account for in their expenses a certain number of financial charges associated with their real estate investment. And that is the famous device you have probably all heard of, called the status of the private landlord. Excuse me, and it resembles notably a device you know which is the LMNP, the status of the non-professional furnished lessor. So we hear a lot about the idea that it should be burdened, and notably reinternalize in the calculation of capital gains the amortizations that have been made over time by property owners to reduce their real estate taxation. Today, it is roughly the only device that still works to make rental investment attractive. So it is what allows us today, for example, to sell student residences. So there is a first message: not to further burden real estate taxation, pardon for the parable, but not to shoot the ambulance by dismantling the LMNP device, i.e., by over-taxing the capital gains at exit realized by owners under this status, and perhaps on the contrary to be inspired by it to generalize it to traditional housing, to unfurnished housing, and allow a little bit to bring real estate taxation closer to common law through this device. Sorry, I was too far away. Thank you very much.

I will do my best, but there are many questions and some go a bit beyond my skills as just the boss of a promotion company. I don't have solutions and especially not opinions on the ZAN. I think I said it, I clearly think that I am convinced that we are in a climate crisis and that everyone must make efforts. Nexity has committed; we have a 1.5-degree trajectory. So as the boss of this committed company, I prefer to do urban renovation rather than build in areas where there is no public transport, for example. So I think that collectively obliging ourselves to be more careful about land consumption seems to me to be going in the right direction. Afterwards, it must be pragmatic, but it's rather up to you, the mayors, to say it and work on it. Yes, that's what I understand. So that's what I meant. There are very good ideas and sometimes they are implemented in a technocratic way and everyone goes crazy, we have all experienced that. So we need to succeed in finding that. On the measure, I tried to tell you earlier: what is really painful today is investment in real estate. I agree with you, that is, we tell it at least every ten years, and there are French people who are convinced of that: they like to go see what they bought. But finally, in the moment, we must realize that they vote with their feet and that's not where they put their money in a classic rental for reasons of return, despite everything. So what would be my favorite measure? Listen, there are many ideas. I think we need to rework this taxation fundamentally, but that involves looking at the IFI, looking at property tax. We are in extremely delicate subjects. So if we make proposals that are on the table, I think it's either a reworked Pinel, which is known to the French, effective, quick, measures of the Balladur type if I understood correctly, or a very simple measure: we say that roughly real estate is not more taxed than a bond coupon or a dividend, and we make a single tax levy. That's simple, but then I don't know how to manage the IFI and land issues inside. On the non-profit, yes, we have, and on the inclusive housing, I think we are the only promoter to have a non-profit activity. That is, when we build if it lends itself to it and the mayor wishes, we make residences that accommodate homeless people, a certain number of much more fragile populations, always in association with a large national association. And we produce them in proportion to what we produce in classic housing. I am not an NGO, I am not a non-profit in itself; I need to make a profit to be able to redistribute on these activities, but we hold a lot to it. It's very important for us. The inclusive housing in our projects. What about the 35%? You are right, it blocks investment. The rule of the High Council for Financial Stability, the 35% applied equally to a first-time buyer and to someone who invests, makes no sense and also greatly slows down real estate investment. And I think I have answered all the questions. I believe the littoral and the coastline. Listen, we continue, we have teams that obviously continue to build in territories that remain very attractive. We have no problem of attractiveness in Brittany or on the coastline. Very well. Well, thank you very much, Madam President-CEO, Mr. Director, for all these elements that will obviously be very precious to us in the examination of the various texts that will be proposed to us. Dear colleagues, we are adjourning the session and we have a meeting next Wednesday at 9:30.