Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores SA is an issuer of securities in Colombia and in the United States, registered with Colombia's National Registry of Shares and Issuers, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. As such, it is subject to the control of the Superintendency of Finance and Compliance with applicable U.S. securities regulation as a foreign private issuer under Rule 405 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. Grupo Aval is not a financial institution and is not supervised or regulated as a financial institution in Colombia, as an issuer of securities of Colombia Grupo Aval is required to comply with periodic reporting requirements and corporate governance. However, it is not regulated as a financial institution or as a holding company of banking subsidiaries and thus does not require to comply with capital adequacy regulation applicable to banks and other financial institutions. All of our banking subsidiaries, Banco de Bogotá, Banco de Occidente, Banco Popular, Banco AV Villas and their respective Colombian financial subsidiaries including Porvenir and Corficolombiana, are subject to inspection and surveillance as financial institutions by the Superintendency of Finance. Although we are not a financial institution until December 31, 2014, we prepared the audited consolidated financial information included in our quarterly reports with accordance with the regulations of the Superintendency of Finance for financial institutions and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for banks to operate in Colombia, also known as Colombian Banking GAAP because we believe that presentation on that basis most appropriately reflected our activities as a holding company of a group of banks and other financial institutions. However, in 2009 the Colombian Congress enacted Law 1314 establishing the implementation of IFRS in Colombia. As a result, since January 1, 2015, financial entities and Colombian issuers of publicly traded securities, such as Grupo Aval, must…

Thank you, Cilia. Thank you very much. Good morning and thank you for joining our call. It's my pleasure to report and in line with our expectations Aval had a good first quarter. In the next few minutes I will highlight a few of our results and later on in the call Diego will address these and other points in detail. But first, let me start by addressing an issue that has been made -- on the minds of some of the analyst that follow us and obviously one of high importance to us. I'm referring to the capital structure of Banco de Bogotá. For background, recently Moody's downgraded Banco de Bogotá standalone baseline credit assessment as well as its long-term denominated, subordinated debt and both rate into lowered under the investment grade threshold. Furthermore in accordance with Moody's rating system, Grupo was rating of its long-term senior foreign denominated debt was also downgraded, as a result of the action taken on Banco de Bogotá. The mentioned downgrades were accompanied by negative outlooks from Moody's, to address those negative outlooks, we agreed to present the plan to Moody's before their June meeting, consequently over the past month, we've been working on a plan which we’re confident, will get this rating agency to remove the negative outlook on the different debt instruments of Banco de Bogotá and hopefully to upgrade these ratings. Over the past two weeks, we have discussed this plan with regulators, accountants and lawyers all whom have cleared at least one of two major initiatives. We expect to present our plan to Moody's in early June, as soon as we iron out the details, we will announce that components of our plan to the market. In the meantime, as you will see later on in the presentation Banco…

Thank you, Luis Carlos. I will now start with the evaluation of our macroeconomic environment. Starting on page five, we present the evolution of some key macro drivers of our industry. Market consensus and real GDP growth as reported by Bloomberg had a slight downward provision since our last call now standing at 2.3% for 2016 and 3% for 2017. Return to market consensus and as Luis Carlos mentioned we have a slight positive bias expecting 2016 growth to be in the 2.5 and 3 quarters area. As discussed before, we have a positive view on the impact of a more competitive peso and the contribution of the Cartagena Refinery to GDP. In addition, we expect to see a minor contribution of the fourth generation consensus and private public initiatives during the last month of this year in a more relevant manner during 2017. We have also seen some recovery of international oil prices that is permanent which is beneficial for growth. Downside risk will continue to come from oil prices and lower government spending and certain fee and GDP growth also comes from the potentially impact, our terms of the tax report. Regarding an impairment, we have started to observe the mild deterioration that we have been expecting for some time. The last data point, our renewal is that for March 2016 with the figure of 10.1% up from 8.9% reported a year earlier for the same month. Finally, fourth quarter data on current account [indiscernible] saw some improvement compared to the previous quarter. Nevertheless, absolute numbers continue to be fragile on this front. Moving to Page 6, represent inflation and some interest rate benchmarks, 12 month inflation has slightly improved since our last call. The last data point available is that for April 2016, the figure reported was…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Domingos Falavina from JP Morgan.

I have two questions, actually my first one is related to Pacific Rubiales. You mentioned in factor NPLs, but is even provide a lot of detail, we noticed [indiscernible] taking different business lines on NPLs, as well on macro credit, as well as on large corporates. Just wanted to get a better sense like what would have been the total NPLs if not for Pacific Rubiales and which one of the loan lines here was most impacted, was it the commercial, did it spill over to micro credit, seeing how you guys think about that?

I got one question, Pacific Rubiales question. What would have been the rate in absence of the facility deterioration and you had another question on the quality of portfolio. Domingos?

Yes. Like which line for Pacific Rubiales probably impact when we look at the NPL per loan products?

Okay, okay. Pacific is corporate therefore it affected our corporate numbers. In affected roughly around 10 basis points might have been this type of Pacific Rubiales deterioration and our index. As I mentioned it’s not only affected the way we’ve created our loans, but it affected our cost of risks. If the setup cost of risk is stripped out, would have been or the cost of risk is stripped out Pacific would have been of around 1.7% comparable to what we had during the last quarter of last year. So perhaps expanding and the guidance, we slightly increased our guidance and cost of risks and the reason for increasing this guidance is particularly the Pacific Rubiales event and some deterioration, additional deterioration in the service providers to the oil industry. Pacific to give you a feel of what to expect for the remainder of the year, it might have around COP70 billion left of provisioning part of that has already been put during the quarter and we expect to complete that during the second quarter of this year. Your question on the quality of the portfolio, if I understood it right. We expect to see some slight deterioration on consumer and SMEs. This is based more on our expectation and what macro could impact the ratios rather than actually substantial deterioration perceived throughout the past months. Guide [ph] you on how to read our numbers, you might have seen some deterioration during the quarter compared to the last quarter of last year. However, if you compare it to the first quarter of 2015 numbers haven’t fully changed a lot. Numbers for consumer at the end of the first quarter of ’15 was 4% and it moved up to 4.1% based on PDLs -- on 30-days PDLs. And based on NPLs, the number was quite flat. Therefore, we might see some more deterioration there, but as we have said in our past calls, it will be a mild deterioration, it will however impact some expansion in your costs of risks.

And the next question comes from Carlos Rivera from Citi.

Yes, thanks. Diego so I want to ask you about capital. The first one is as you mentioned there was some big statement in the Tier 1 ratio of Banco de Bogota for December up 290 basis points. So first of all really what was this restatement about, I mean you talked about that now you’re including our compensated income in the Tier 1 capital, but if you can be more specific? Also second question on capital also, I estimate based on the risk weighted assets that Banco de Bogotá [ph] reported as of the end of December. That the impact of this in the Tier 1 capital was about $1.1 billion. So if you can confirm, if my estimate is more or less correct because these are big capitalization really that you are leading Banco de Bogota? And the third one is, if I look at the Tier 1 ratio Banco de Bogota now 10% at the end of March. And that number looks to be fine, its significant higher than other banks in Colombia, Bancolombia Liena, it’s in line with the Tier 1 ratio of your other subsidiaries of [indiscernible]. So if that’s the case, the Tier 1 ratio right now is 10%. Why these things have the need to work on a capital client, why are you saying that you’re going to be submitting a capital plans to move this and specific to my question, is there any probability that you will have to undo this capital increase that you have or issue a statement that you have really done for Banco de Bogota. Thank you.

This is Luis Carlos Sarmiento. Let me try to answer your questions. With respect to what happened. Well, first of all you’re right the increase in Colombia’s regulatory capital was about $1 billion. Why? It is simple and as complicated as this. We had several meetings with the Superintendence of banks because we weren’t quite sure why it was that banks similar to ours, like Bancolombia Liena we’re not suffering the same effects as we were in our regulatory capital after a devaluation of the peso. It seemed that we were being -- that we were suffering more the consequences of devaluation in our regulatory capital for Colombian standards that these other two banks were suffering. So we sat down with Superintendents and we asked them to go line-by-line over the extensive calculation that is put in place to come up with regulatory capital in Colombia. What we found out in that meeting as we went down line-by-line and comparing it to the calculations that our competitor banks do was that there was some devaluation effects that count towards regulatory capital and some don’t. We had been netting all these effects in one line, the Superintendents asked us to detail the line, to open up the line where we’ve been netting all these effects. When we did so, the Superintendents pointed out that netting the results of devaluation on things like assets on the one hand and derivative on the liability sides on the other hand was done maybe conservatively, but in all trueness, incorrectly. So, when they noticed that and they quantified the line, immediately they asked us to report with that line as part of regulatory capital and to restate December going back to what that line had been in December. It was already part of capital bear…

We have no further questions. I'll turn the call back over to Mr. Sarmiento for closing remarks.

I just wanted to thank everybody for being on the call and all those that are always on our calls and I also wanted to -- this is my first call where I get a chance to listen to the new analysts from JP Morgan and Citi and welcome to the bunch and hopefully we'll have many more of these discussions going forward. Thank you very much and have a great day.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today's conference, thank you for participating, you may now disconnect.