FORECAST FOR SNAP TÍTULO. Subtítulo

Transcription

1 FORECAST FOR SNAP TÍTULO ELECTION RESULTS IN SPAIN Subtítulo Diciembre April BARCELONA BOGOTA BUENOS AIRES LIMA LISBON MADRID MEXICO CITY MIAMI PANAMA CITY QUITO RIO J SAO PAULO SANTIAGO STO DOMINGO

2 Index Introduction Government agreement or elections? Intention to vote in the elections Ideológical spaces Parties actions since 20 December Negotiation on government agreements National leaders Estimated results Provincial results Methodological Note Technical specifications

3 Introduction The deadline for appointing a new President of the Government in Spain is 2 May. One hundred and thirty-four days would have passed since the general elections on 20 December, during which time the political parties have failed to reach an agreement which would prevent the need for a new election. Socialist (PSOE) leader, Pedro Sánchez was the only candidate requested by the king to try and form a government before Parliament. The debate took place at the start of March. Sánchez presented a government programme drafted by his party and Ciudadanos (C s). On 2 March, his programme was opposed during the first investiture vote. Sánchez s No was confirmed 48 hours later. This first vote set the countdown in motion: the parliamentary groups would have two months to find a candidate or the Cortes Generales would be dissolved automatically. Parliamentary groups will hold a new round of talks with the king on 25 and 26 April. On 26 April, the king will inform the president of the parliament if a new candidate will be presented or certify that it is impossible to form a government. On 2 May, the State Official Gazette will publish the Royal Decree for the dissolution of parliament and call for fresh elections on 26 June. The first part of this study provides predictions for the attitude with which the Spanish public is confronting the current situation and the possible repeated elections. The second part provides an election forecast. The study is based on a telephone survey conducted for LLORENTE & CUENCA by the Institute of Research, Marketing and Public Opinion (IMOP by its Spanish acronym). The survey was conducted on 1,027 people (with 30 % of surveys being on mobile telephones) between 6 and 10 April. The questionnaire had two levels. One questionnaire was conducted on the entire sample. Furthermore, those people who voted for Partido Popular, PSOE, Podemos, Ciudadanos or Izquierda Unida in the 20 December elections (68 % of the sample) were asked to score the negotiations, the attitude of the parties and their leaders. The second part of the study presents the possible results for 26 June elections. The allocation of seats is done according to political formations that were presented on December 20 and the existing provincial distribution. The results of the two main parties, PSOE and PP, are kept in similar terms repeating number of seats. The three parties who experience significant changes are: Ciudadanos and Izquierda Unida rise and Podemos falls. 3

4 Government agreement or elections? Given the current situation, several parties must reach an agreement so as to form government. Would you prefer that several parties reached an agreement to form government or that the elections are repeated? 20 December past votes % PP PSOE PODEMOS* C S IU-UP Others* That an agreement is reached to form government That the elections are repeated Does not know / No answer *Past vote for other parties. Does not include those who did not vote or did not state a past vote for any party. Age groups % * 65 o más That an agreement is reached to form government That the elections are repeated Does not know / No answer Most of the survey participants would like a government pact, but preference for an election repeat is considerable at 37 %. This figure has increased in recent months: in our January survey 27.8 % wanted the elections to be repeated. Only PP voters are mainly in favour of the elections being repeated. A preference for a government pact is much stronger among right-wing party voters: PSOE (77.5 %), Podemos (68.5 %) and IU-UP (78.2 %). The preference for a government pact clearly increases with age. While there is almost a draw between both positions for the youngest age group, the difference becomes wider until the oldest age group (65 years), which is strongly inclined towards avoiding repeat elections. Figure 1. Government agreement or elections? Figure 2. Agreement or elections (by age group) % 58,8 % Agreement Elections o más Agreement Elections Does not know / No answer 4

5 Intention to vote in the elections Any participation hypothesis for elections is premature and hazardous, especially given that the elections have yet to be called. In Spain, around 60 % of the public always votes (excluding European elections); and 20 % occasionally vote depending on several circumstances. Most of the 20 % of occasional voters -characterised by their scarce political interest- does not think about voting until the elections are imminent. An election repeat has never been seen before, meaning that such prediction must be made with even more caution. However, most analysts agree on predicting a smaller participation than the 20 December elections and some of the responses concerning attitudes in our survey, suggest the same. On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely are you going to vote if new general elections are called? Ns/nc % Experience shows that only those who responded with a likeliness of 10 can be considered certain voters, and those that gave a likeliness of 9 probable voters. Anywhere below these figures, are more than likely to be abstainers. To this end, bearing in mind our caution as mentioned above, we can consider that 10 is a low participation scenario and 9 and 10 together is a high participation scenario. In this case, low participation would be around 62 % and high participation around 67 % 1. Figure 3. Intention to vote in the elections (points 9 and 10) Probable (9) Certain (10) Total Probable (9) Certain (10) Total SEX 20D VOTE Men 5,2 60,6 65,8 PP 2,8 76,1 78,9 Women 5,0 62,5 67,5 PSOE 4,4 62,4 66,7 Podemos 3,7 70,9 74,6 Ciudadanos 12,4 66,7 79,1 IU-UP 5,6 74,1 79,7 Others 1,4 76,7 78,1 AGE IDEOLOGICAL POSITION ,1 53,9 63, ,3 68,8 72, ,8 63,8 69, ,2 57,8 66, ,5 62,5 67,0 5 4,8 50,6 55,5 Over 65 2,6 62,3 65, ,6 60,3 66, ,4 84,5 86,9 Sociologically, the intention of voting is fundamentally related to the size of the population and the educational level: those living in large urban nuclei and with higher education would be more likely to vote. Politically, the most mobilised electorate seems to be PP voters (76 % certain they will vote); and the least motivated are PSOE voters (62.4 %). Ideologically, strong mobilisation is observed in the right. Low participation in point 5 can be explained because not only those who consider themselves as centre positioned themselves in this point on the scale, many are also non-politicised without a definite ideological identity (and therefore tend to abstain). 1 Intention to vote (points 9 and 10) often increases as the election date approaches, especially during the last week of the electoral campaign. 5

6 Ideological spaces Imagine a series of boxes from 1 to 10 that go from left to right. Box 1 represents the most left-wing position and box 10 the most right-wing position. In accordance with your political ideas, in which box would you position yourself? Average % Does not know / No answer Voters 2015* 2016** PP PSOE PODEMOS CIUDADANOS IU-UP *Remember to have voted this party in the 20 December elections. **State their intention to vote for this party in the possible 26 June elections. There are minimal differences in voters ideological position, except in the case of IU-UP, which was leaning very much towards the left in December and has now moved 0.6 towards the right after increasing in volume and receiving a significant transfer of Podemos -and some PSOE- votes. Figure 4. Intention to vote by ideological position , , Pure left (1-2) Centre-left (3-4) Centre and undefined (5) Centre-right (6-7) Pure right (8-10) PP PSOE Podemos Ciudadanos UP-IU Otros Blank vote/wouldn t vote/does not know Note: We describe point 5 as being centre and undefined because those people who are non-politicised and do not have a definite ideology often prefer to be positioned in point 5 instead of being sheltered by Does not know/no answer, without necessarily implying a centrist political position. This is why point 5 is the most populated and observes the most abstention. PSOE is the first party in the pure left space and the centre-left due to the division between Podemos and IU-UP. If they were to join forces, they spill over both spaces. Ciudadanos is the most voted party in point 5 and competes with PP in the centre-right space (5-6). PP s (8-10) control of the pure right space is overwhelming. Podemos has the most of its votes in the left spaces, but has a notable presence in point 5, not far from PSOE and PP. Inclination to abstain is especially present in point 5 (where, as we have previously mentioned, there is a high percentage of non-politicised respondents) and in the centre-left space. The tendency to abstain is lower in centre-right, pure right and pure left spaces. 6

7 Parties actions since 20 December EVALUATION OF PARTIES ACTIONS SINCE THE 20 DECEMBER ELECTIONS From 0 to 10, how would you score each of the political parties actions since the elections until now? 20 December past votes AVERAGE PP PSOE PODEMOS* C S IU PP PSOE Podemos Ciudadanos IU-UP In the overall score, none of the parties exceeds 5. C s obtained the best score (4.4) and Podemos the worst score (3.2). In general, each voter approved the actions taken by the party that it votes for and dismisses the other parties. But with significant meanings: IU-UP (7.2) and PP (6.7) received the best score from their own voters. As we already saw, these two parties also maintain a higher voter loyalty rate. Podemos received the lowest score from its own voters (5.9). In fact, 22 % of Podemos voters failed the party ( 5) for its actions. PSOE voters gave Ciudadanos actions a better score (4.8) than C s for PSOE (3.7). Throughout the survey, we observed that the PSOE-C s pact helped improve C s reputation among socialist voters compared to the other way round. Podemos voters scored IU-UP s actions (5.6) almost as positively as their own party (5.9). TRUST IN POLITICIANS Has your trust in politicians increased or decreased during the past months? % PP PSOE PODEMOS C S IU Has increased Remains the same Has decreased The response is conclusive: for more than two thirds of the population, trust in politicians has decreased during the months since the elections took place, which was already exceedingly low before. Curiously, PSOE (82 %) and Ciudadanos (86 %) voters seem to be the most disappointed, maybe due to the frustration that the pact reached between them and Sánchez s investiture attempt were unsuccessful. Figure 5. Trust in politicians 5.6 % 16.8 % Has increased Remains the same Has decreased 77.7 % 7

8 Negotiation on government agreements WILLINGNESS TO REACH AN AGREEMENT As you are aware, until now, no agreement has been reached to form a government. Which party do you believe has made more effort to achieve a government agreement? 20 December past votes % PP PSOE PODEMOS C S IU PP PSOE Podemos Ciudadanos Others None Does not know / No answer Respondents clearly believe that PSOE has made greater efforts to reach a government agreement. All left voters acknowledge such: PSOE voters (68 %) of course, but also Podemos (39 %) and IU-UP (48 %) voters. Ciudadanos is acknowledged as being the second party to make greater negotiating efforts. Such is firstly cited by PP voters (which also position PSOE above their own party with regard their will to negotiate) and their own voters (although almost a third mentions PSOE before). And which party is mainly responsible for not having reached a government agreement? 20 December past votes % PP PSOE PODEMOS C S IU PP PSOE Podemos Ciudadanos All the same None Does not know / No answer In the previous question PSOE was recognised as being the party with the greatest will to negotiate, but is also highlighted here as being the most responsible for not reaching an agreement. In our view, this is a reflection of the leading role that PSOE and Pedro Sánchez have had in the negotiations: the main negotiation efforts fall on them, but so does greater responsibility, given its failure. In any case, what tips the scales in this case is PP voters opinion: 60 % point to PSOE as being responsible for failing to reach an agreement. The PP leaders speech seems to have filtered through to its voters. Both PSOE and Ciudadanos voters firstly blame Podemos. It is significant that 29 % of Ciudadanos voters blame PSOE for failing to reach an agreement: this probably reproach for refusing to negotiate with PP. Podemos and IU-UP voters seem to be divided on the matter and tend to share out the responsibility. Both point to PSOE firstly, but with very narrow margins over the rest. Podemos is highlighted as being mainly responsible for failing to negotiate by 17.5 % of their own voters and by % of IU-UP voters, which, added to 47 % of socialists that also blamed Podemos, showing the controversial effect that Iglesias s party actions have had in the left space during the negotiations. 8

9 National leaders LEADER SCORE Please could you score the following politician s from 0 to 10 based on your opinion of them Average Albert Rivera Alberto Garzón Pedro Sánchez Mariano Rajoy Pablo Iglesias Does not know/no answer 20 December past votes MEDIA PP PSOE Podemos C S IU Albert Rivera Alberto Garzón Pedro Sánchez Mariano Rajoy Pablo Iglesias Albert Rivera is the leader that received the best score, because not only was he highly scored by his own voters (7.1), he was also approved by PP and PSOE voters. Mariano Rajoy and Pablo Iglesias were the worst scored and create the most polarization: 30 % of survey participants scored Rajoy with zero and 26 % did the same with Iglesias. However, Rajoy received an excellent score from PP voters (7.1) and Iglesias obtained the lowest score from his own voters. Pedro Sánchez s score was not greatly polarized: PSOE voters gave him a satisfactory 6.9 and other voters -except PP- gave him moderate scores, close to a pass (5). Alberto Garzón maintained an excellent personal reputation, with very satisfactory scores from other voters considering he is a leader with such extreme ideologies. Podemos voters scored Garzón (6.7) higher than Iglesias (6.6). 9

10 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE Which of the political leaders would you prefer to be President of the Government? 20 December past votes % PP PSOE Podemos C S IU Pedro Sánchez Mariano Rajoy Albert Rivera Alberto Garzón Pablo Iglesias Pedro Sánchez is the preferred candidate for President of the Government, ahead of Mariano Rajoy and Albert Rivera. Alberto Garzón and Pablo Iglesias are very much left behind. It is evident that Sánchez has gained presidential reputation over recent months: it is likely that his designation as candidate, the investiture session and leading role during the negotiation process have given him credibility as a potential president. Rajoy has extremely high rejection rates among voters of other parties, but continues to have strong support from PP voters. Furthermore, 79 % of those who scored him highly (7.1) name him as their preferred president. In cases, (score and presidential preference) Rajoy exceeds Sánchez with regard to support from their own voters, although he awakens more rejection from the rest of the population. More worrying is Pablo Iglesias s situation among Podemos voters: only 42 % would choose him as president. 26 % percent prefer Garzón and 21 % prefer Sánchez. 10

11 Estimated results ESTIMATION % SEATS Scenario A 20D % SEATS PP PSOE Podemos* Ciudadanos Izquierda Unidad ERC DiL PNV EH-Bildu Others Blank vote *Including En Comú Podem (Catalonia), Compromís-Podemos (Valencian Community) and En Marea (Galicia). Based on the survey results, we set a 69 % of participation on election night (excluding the CERA, as explained in the methodological note at the end of this report). In 2015 it was %, slightly higher than in 2011 (71.69 %). The allocation of seats has been made on the distribution of deputies per province that was established for the elections on December 20. For June 26, we will use the census of 2015 which can vary the number of members in some provinces. The projection is made on the same political formations that run in the elections of 2015, without taking into account the possible disruption of electoral alliances. 11

12 Provincial results AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY DISTRICT SEATS 2015 PP PSOE PODEMOS C S IU ERC DIL PNV EH- BILDU CC Almería 6 3 (+1) 2 0 (-1) 1 Cádiz (-1) 1 1 (+1) Córdoba (-1) 1 (+1) Andalusia Granada Huelva (+1) 0 (-1) Jaén Málaga (-1) 2 1 (+1) Sevilla (-1) (+1) Huesca (-1) 1 (+1) Aragon Teruel Zaragoza 7 2 (-1) (+1) Asturias Asturias (-1) 1 1 (+1) Canary Islands Las Palmas Tenerife Cantabria Cantabria Albacete Ciudad Real 5 2 (-1) 2 1 (+1) Castilla- La Mancha Cuenca Guadalajara Toledo 6 3 (+1) 2 0 (-1) 1 Ávila Burgos (-1) 1 (+1) León Palencia 3 1 (-1) 1 1 (+1) Castilla y Leon Salamanca Segovia 3 1 (-1) 1 1 (+1) Soria Valladolid 5 3 (+1) 1 0 (-1) 1 Zamora

13 AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY DISTRICT SEATS 2015 PP PSOE PODEMOS C S IU ERC DIL PNV EH- BILDU CC Barcelona (+1) 7 (-2) 6 (+2) 5 3 (-1) Catalonia Gerona (+1) 2 1 (-1) Lérida Tarragona Estremadura Badajoz (-1) 1 (+1) Cáceres La Coruña Galicia Lugo Orense 4 3 (+1) 1 0 (-1) Pontevedra (-1) 2 1 (+1) Balearic Islands Baleares (-1) 2 (+1) The Rioja La Rioja (-1) 1 (+1) Madrid Madrid (-1) 6 6 (-2) 8 (+1) 4 (+2) Murcia Murcia Navarre Navarra 5 3 (+1) 1 1 (-1) Álava Basque Country Guipúzcoa Vizcaya Alicante (-1) 2 1 (+1) Valencian Comunity Castellón Valencia (-2) 3 (+1) 1 (+1) Ceuta 1 1 Melilla 1 1 Total

14 COMUNIDAD AUTÓNOMA PP PSOE WINS Almería Toledo Valladolid Orense Navarra Huelva Barcelona LOSES Zaragoza Ciudad Real Palencia Segovia Madrid Seville Pontevedra Almería Cádiz Huelva Málaga Badajoz Orense Baleares La Rioja Podemos Asturias Madrid (2) Toledo Burgos Navarra Alicante Valladolid Valencia (2) Barcelona (2) Huesca Badajoz Ciudad Real Pontevedra Burgos Baleares CIUDADANOS Palencia La Rioja Córdoba Segovia Madrid Barcelona (2) Valencia Girona Córdoba Granada Málaga Sevilla UP/IU Zaragoza Asturias Madrid (2) Alicante Valencia 14

15 Methodological Note This means that only 88,085 (4,7 %) of the 1,880,767 Spanish residents abroad with voting rights participated. This is the effect of the expatriate vote, which was implemented in the Electoral Law reform in Given that we did not make any calls outside of Spain for the survey, and in order to ensure data homogeneity, we will use the 20 December election results as reference, without considering the CERA data. However, we will not forget that the real, official and final results are the latter ones. To make the distribution of votes and seats by provinces, we have followed the following steps: 2015 GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS Provisional count (WITHOUT CERA) Final count (WITH CERA) Census 34,631,086 36,511,848 Voters 25,350,447 (73.2 %) 25,438,532 (69.67 %) This means that only 88,085 (4,7 %) of the 1,880,767 Spanish residents abroad with voting rights participated. This is the effect of the expatriate vote, which was implemented in the Electoral Law reform in Given that we did not make any calls outside of Spain for the survey, and in order to ensure data homogeneity, we will use the 20 December election results as reference, without considering the CERA data. However, we will not forget that the real, official and final results are the latter ones. To make the distribution of votes and seats by provinces, we have followed the following steps: The results of all elections held during 2015 have been summed, in which the political forces of reference has already been the same that would occur in a possible general election. The aggregate data has been subjected to several successive deliberations:»» Firstly, we have established the internal composition of the vote of each political force from the territorial point of view: that is, the relative weight of each province within the global vote of each party. Experience shows that, within a single election cycle, even if the obtained results change for each party from one to another election, the territorial structure of their vote is held.»» Then, based on the-general regional elections of 2011 and only for the parties that participated then, we applied correction coefficients to neutralize the differences in behavior between regional and general elections: these coefficients are applied both nationally and in each of the provinces.»» We have detected and corrected those cases where the regional vote is obviously marked by a singular fact (for example, the presence of a candidate of great importance).»» Finally, we have taken into account the formation of partnerships in the candidacies presented to the general election. 15

16 Technical specifications Universe: people over 17 years of age, residing on mainland Spain, the Balearic and Canary Islands, with the right to vote in the general elections. Sample size: interviews. Interview method:»» Landline: in three phases: Phase 1: town. Stratified random sample based on variable habitat and autonomous community sizes. Phase 2: telephone (home). Random sample based on the recoded Irismedia directory, refined by IMOP. Phase 3: individual. Controlling gender and age quotas on a differentiated basis for Andalusia, Madrid, Catalonia and others. The computer application selects the least represented family member in the sample at the time of the call and postpones the interview if the chosen person is not available at that time.»» Mobile telephone: a random sample was drawn from a mobile telephone database generated automatically by IMOP based on the codes assigned to each of the mobile operators. Before starting the field work, this database was tested so as to automatically detect inactive lines. Interview method: computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system % of interview were conducted with individuals by mobile telephone. Fieldwork dates: the interviews were conducted between Wednesday 6 and Sunday 10 April Estimated interview duration: 4,75 minutes for respondents that had not voted one of the five national political formations (PP, PSOE, Podemos, Ciudadanos, Unidad Popular-IU. For the remaining respondents, the interviewed would last an average of 10.6 minutes. The questionnaire was submitted to the client for its supervision before it was implemented. Survey prepared by IMOP, the institute of research, marketing and public opinion. 16

17 Reputation Management, Communication and Public Affairs Leader in Spain, Portugal and Latin America LLORENTE & CUENCA is the leading Reputation, Communication and Public Affairs management consultancy in Spain, Portugal and Latin America. The team comprises 22 partners, of which 20 are professionals and two are financial, along with 482 professionals that provide strategic consultancy services to companies in all business sectors with operations targeted at the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking markets. LLORENTE & CUENCA currently has its own offices in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Spain, United States (Miami), Mexico, Panama, Peru, Portugal and the Dominican Republic. It is also able to offer its services through affiliate companies in Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. In 2015, the firm s international development earned it 56th position on the Global Ranking of the most important communication companies in the world, a leader board drawn up by The Homes Report. It is the communications firm that has won most awards in the markets where it operates. So far this year it has won 56 awards through campaigns carried out for clients like Embratur, Coca-Cola Iberia, Avon, Antamina, Gas Natural Fenosa, Gonvarri Steel Industries, CaixaBank, SABMiller or L Oréal, inter alia, and corporate projects like the launch of the new corporate site, the annual report 2014 or the interactive animation document Entertainment Territory. Furthermore, it competed in the LinkedIn #PremiosIN2015 to be the company that best communicates on LinkedIn in Spain. Team of Specialists Joan Navarro Partner and Vice-president of Public Affairs at LLORENTE & CUENCA jnavarro@llorenteycuenca.com Cristóbal Herrera Manager of Public Affairs Area at LLORENTE & CUENCA Spain cherrera@llorenteycuenca.com 17

18 CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SPAIN AND PORTUGAL UNITED STATES Lima José Antonio Llorente Founding Partner and Chairman Enrique González Partner and CFO Adolfo Corujo Partner and Chief Talent and Innovation Officer Tomás Matesanz Chief Corporate & Brand Officer MANAGEMENT - SPAIN AND PORTUGAL Arturo Pinedo Partner and Managing Director apinedo@llorenteycuenca.com Goyo Panadero Partner and Managing Director gpanadero@llorenteycuenca.com MANAGEMENT - LATIN AMERICA Alejandro Romero Partner and CEO Latin America aromero@llorenteycuenca.com Luisa García Partner and CEO Andes Region lgarcia@llorenteycuenca.com José Luis Di Girolamo Partner and CFO Latin America jldgirolamo@llorenteycuenca.com talent MANAGEMENT Daniel Moreno HR Manager for Spain and Portugal dmoreno@llorenteycuenca.com Barcelona María Cura Partner and Managing Director mcura@llorenteycuenca.com Muntaner, , 1º-1ª Barcelona Tel Madrid Joan Navarro Partner and Vice-president of Public Affairs jnavarro@llorenteycuenca.com Amalio Moratalla Partner and Senior Director amoratalla@llorenteycuenca.com Lagasca, 88 - planta Madrid Tel Ana Folgueira Managing Director of Impossible Tellers ana@impossibletellers.com Impossible Tellers Diego de León, 22, 3º izq Madrid Tel Lisbon Madalena Martins Partner mmartins@llorenteycuenca.com Tiago Vidal Managing Director tvidal@llorenteycuenca.com Carlos Ruiz Director cruiz@llorenteycuenca.com Avenida da Liberdade nº225, 5º Esq Lisbon Tel Miami Erich de la Fuente Partner and Managing Director edelafuente@llorenteycuenca.com 600 Brickell Ave. Suite 2020 Miami, FL T el New York City Latam Desk Adriana Aristizábal Senior consultant aaristizabal@llorenteycuenca.com 277 Park Avenue, 39th Floor New York, NY T el MEXICO, CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN Mexico City Juan Rivera Partner and Managing Director jrivera@llorenteycuenca.com Av. Paseo de la Reforma 412, Piso 14, Col. Juárez, Del. Cuauhtémoc CP 06600, Mexico City Tel Havana Pau Solanilla Managing Director for Cuba psolanilla@llorenteycuenca.com Lagasca, 88 - planta Madrid Tel Panama City Javier Rosado Partner and Managing Director jrosado@llorenteycuenca.com Luisa García Partner and CEO Andes Region lgarcia@llorenteycuenca.com Av. Andrés Reyes 420, piso 7 San Isidro Tel Quito Alejandra Rivas Managing Director arivas@llorenteycuenca.com Avda. 12 de Octubre N y Cordero Edificio World Trade Center Torre B - piso 11 Tel Santiago de Chile Claudio Ramírez Partner and General Manager cramirez@llorenteycuenca.com Magdalena 140, Oficina Las Condes. Tel SOUTH AMERICA Buenos Aires Pablo Abiad Partner and Managing Director pabiad@llorenteycuenca.com Daniel Valli Senior Director of New Business Development for the Southern Cone dvalli@llorenteycuenca.com Av. Corrientes 222, piso 8. C1043AAP Tel Rio de Janeiro Yeray Carretero Director ycarretero@llorenteycuenca.com Marjorie Barrientos HR Manager for Andes Region mbarrientos@llorenteycuenca.com Av. Samuel Lewis Edificio Omega - piso 6 Tel Rua da Assembleia, 10 - Sala 1801 RJ Tel Karina Valencia HR Manager for North America, Central America and Caribbean kvalencia@llorenteycuenca.com Karina Sanches HR Manager for the Southern Cone ksanches@llorenteycuenca.com Sergio Cortés Partner. Founder and Chairman scortes@cink.es Calle Girona, 52 Bajos Barcelona Tel Santo Domingo Iban Campo Managing Director icampo@llorenteycuenca.com Av. Abraham Lincoln 1069 Torre Ejecutiva Sonora, planta 7 Tel Sao Paulo Marco Antonio Sabino Partner and Brazil Chairman masabino@llorenteycuenca.com Juan Carlos Gozzer Managing Director jcgozzer@llorenteycuenca.com ANDES REGION Bogota Rua Oscar Freire, 379, Cj 111, Cerqueira César SP Tel María Esteve Managing Director mesteve@llorenteycuenca.com Carrera 14, # Torre B of. 501 Tel

19 Developing Ideas by LLORENTE & CUENCA is a hub for ideas, analysis and trends. It is a product of the changing macroeconomic and social environment we live in, in which communication keeps moving forward at a fast pace. Developing Ideas is a combination of global partnerships and knowledge exchange that identifies, defines and communicates new information paradigms from an independent perspective. Developing Ideas is a constant flow of ideas, foreseeing new times for information and management. Because reality is neither black nor white, Developing Ideas exists. amo AMO is the leading global network of strategic and financial communications consultancies, with over 940 professional consultants and offices in more than 20 countries. The network brings together local market leaders with unrivalled knowledge of financial markets and crossborder transactions in the key financial centers of Europe, Asia and the Americas. Providing sophisticated communications counsel for M&A and capital market transactions, media relations, investor relations and corporate crises, our member firms have established relationships with many S&P 500, FTSE 100, DAX 30, SMI, CAC 40 and IBEX 35 companies.