Good morning. My name is Darlene, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to The Hartford Second Quarter 2012 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Ms. Sabra Purtill, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Darlene. Good morning, and welcome to The Hartford Second Quarter 2012 Conference Call. Our speakers today are Liam McGee, The Hartford's Chairman, President and CEO; and Chris Swift, our CFO. Other members of our senior management team here today include Doug Elliot, Brion Johnson, Alan Kreczko, Andy Napoli, and Bob Rupp. As detailed on Page 2 of the presentation, statements concerning The Hartford's future results or actions should be considered forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results may be materially different. We do not assume any obligation to update the forward-looking statements. You should consider the important risks and uncertainties that may cause The Hartford's actual results to differ, including those discussed in our press release, our second quarter 10-Q, 2011 10-K and other filings we make with the SEC. Please note that our presentation includes financial measures that are not derived from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP. Definitions and reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure are provided in our financial supplement, press release, 10-Q and on our website. I'll now turn the call over to Liam.

Thank you, Sabra. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Before I get started, I want to welcome Brion Johnson, our recently appointed Chief Investment Officer. Prior to his appointment in May, Brion was Head of Strategy and Finance for our Investment Management subsidiary. This was a productive quarter at The Hartford. We generated good underlying financial results, marked by improved performance in our go-forward businesses. We successfully refinanced the Allianz debt and completed the $500 million equity repurchase program. We also made progress in executing our new strategy, particularly in the sales processes for the Life businesses, which are proceeding as expected. Let me start with an overview of our quarterly financial results. Core earnings were $119 million or $0.23 per diluted share, including high catastrophe losses, although less than last year's; restructuring expenses; and an unfavorable DAC unlock. Adjusting for these items, core earnings were $0.85 per diluted share, ahead of our May outlook. Importantly, earnings were marked by favorable momentum in our go-forward businesses. Core earnings in P&C Commercial increased 67% from the prior year, reflecting lower catastrophe losses and the favorable impact of the pricing and underwriting actions launched last year, particularly in workers' compensation. We saw adverse loss trends in the comp line early and immediately began taking action. Workers' compensation trends are generally performing as we expected, with only a slight adjustment this quarter. Our actions are now yielding results, and we're optimistic that we've turned the corner. We're getting price increases in all lines with a 7% renewal price increase in standard commercial. In Middle Market, our renewal pricing was up 16% in workers' compensation, and we expect to continue to improve margins and product mix. Retention remains strong for the accounts we want to keep, although down a bit…

Thank you, Liam. Good morning, everyone. My comments this morning will cover 3 areas: a review of second quarter results; an update of our expense targets; and our third quarter current outlook. Second quarter core earnings were $119 million or $0.23 per diluted share, representing a significant improvement over prior year. These results include 4 items I want to highlight. First, catastrophe losses were $189 million after tax, which is $105 million higher than our original outlook. Second, we had unfavorable prior year loss reserve development of $32 million. Both of these items are in line with our July 16 announcement. Third, our results included unfavorable DAC unlock of $127 million, largely related to our quarterly adjustment for market performance on our runoff annuity block. Finally, we also incurred $31 million of restructuring charges, primarily for severance and retention associated with the sales of Individual Life, Retirement Plans and Woodbury Financial services, as well as the shutdown of U.S. VA new business. Core earnings this quarter, excluding these 4 items, were $414 million or $0.85 per diluted share based on a 485 million share count. This is higher than May's outlook of $0.70 to $0.75 per share, primarily driven by better-than-anticipated group benefit results. In this low interest rate environment, we remain focused on pricing actions, as well as strategies to maintain investment yields. The investment portfolio yield was stable this quarter at 4.3%, excluding limited partnerships and other alternative investments, which had a 10% annualized return in the quarter. Consistent with last quarter, we modestly extended the duration of the portfolio and slightly increased our holdings in higher-yielding asset classes. Impairments and changes to the mortgage loan loss reserve rose this quarter to $60 million after tax and DAC, largely due to losses on some recently downgraded financial institution…

Thank you, Chris. We have time for about 30 minutes of Q&A. [Operator Instructions] Darlene, could you please start the Q&A process?

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays.

On the proceeds from the sale of the businesses currently in runoff, Liam, you talked initially about using buybacks or reducing the size of the annuity book, giving us an update there in early 2013. Does that mean the sale process might be taking a little longer than you thought? And can you frame it out just a bit more in terms of how you're thinking about deploying those proceeds?

Jay, first of all, the sales process is proceeding as we expected. As you recall, Jay, when we announced our decision to sell the 3 businesses in March, we also indicated we were prepared. We have done all of our actuarial studies, and so the offering memorandum were in the marketplace approximately a month after our announcement. I would say that, as I said earlier, the process is proceeding as we expected. These are attractive businesses, and it's been a competitive process. In terms of the capital plan, we want to get the agreement signed. As I mentioned in my remarks, work with our constituencies. And I think the convergence of those things says that we'll give you a final capital plan in early 2013. So I would describe everything proceeding as we had expected when we announced things in March.

Okay. And then for the third quarter DAC study, can you -- is there any sort of boundaries you can give us on that in terms of what we should be thinking about in terms of potential charges going into that study?

Chris?

Jay, it's Chris. I wouldn't say there's anything other than normal, I'll call it expense, mortality, interest rate-type assumptions, policyholder behaviors. So I wouldn't say there's any boundaries. It's just our normal annual update that we'll go through.

Year-to-date, how are things tracking along with current assumptions?

I'd say they're tracking very well.

Your next question comes from the line of John Nadel with Sterne Agee. John M. Nadel - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: So just as a quick follow-up on the early 2013, Chris or Liam, it sounds like that's really just around giving us some clarity on the deployment of proceeds. So nothing really changing in terms of your expectation for timing of actual sale announcements. Is that correct?

That's an accurate statement, John, so let me reiterate. I want to be crystal clear on this point. The sales processes are proceeding as we expected. These -- we're pleased to have announced the Woodbury transaction on Tuesday. The Life and Retirement Plan process is proceeding. It -- these are attractive businesses, and it's been a competitive process. The -- we want to present to you and investors an updated, more final capital plan, which will include prospective capital management actions. So I think we're right on schedule. John M. Nadel - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Okay, that's helpful. So then a question -- maybe 2 quick ones for Chris. A question on interest rate risk. Just on the conference call before this one with the folks at Met, they sort of gave us an update of looking at instead of a 2% 10-year, looking at a 1.4%- or 1.5%-type 10-year environment. Can you give us a sense, too, for what that incremental 50 or 60 basis points lower-type rate environment would do to that earnings sensitivity you had provided some -- a few quarters ago?

Yes, happy to, John. And low interest rates, as you know, just are a headwind for everyone in financial services. But our specific, either way I think about it from a momentum side, the assets that we have on the books, so the maturing cash flows and the new cash flows, if we look at the impacts in '13 and '14, I'd call it, roughly the $25 million to $30 million in '13. And you can roughly double it from there in '14 if rates stay low at today's level. John M. Nadel - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: So that's it? That's the incremental above the original guidance?

Yes, it is the incremental impact to sort of the momentum that we will give up in the run rate earnings. John M. Nadel - Sterne Agee & Leach Inc., Research Division: Yes. Okay, that's helpful. And then just a last real quick one. On Slide 12 in your conference call presentation, just can you give some granularity on the VA? I guess the hedge assets didn't quite keep up with the liability in the quarter. Can you give us just a little bit of granularity on what drove that? Was that equity markets, rates, currency? What...

Again, John, I think the attribution, we could work with you off-line, if that's really important to you. But I think the big thing is just, generally, keep in mind, we're not 100% hedged on the economics. So there's always going to be a basis difference. You're always going to have, I'll call it a Japanese impact because most of our Japanese hedges are in the U.S. legal entity. So I would describe it mostly basis difference from my perspective.

Your next question comes from the line of Randy Binner with FBR. Randy Binner - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: So I kind of wanted to try and, I guess, follow up on Jay's question and talk a little bit about your comments on kind of reducing the size of the VA book, isolating and separating it. I appreciate that this is not what's in focus now. Right now, you're focused on selling the 3 other properties. But, I mean, would it be possible to kind of at least frame out at a high level what that might look like? Meaning, could we expect to lose the DAC that's associated with the VA business? I mean, that's an assumption we're making with the potential Life divestiture. And kind of feel confident that there's some material on a capital that could get out of the VA book if you are able to isolate or separate some of that risk from Hartford.

Well, Randy, I'm going to ask Chris to give a little more detail on that, but let me just be very clear in the comments that I made. Our -- under Beth's leadership, our goal is to reduce both the liabilities and the risk of the annuity book. And if opportunities present themselves, to potentially isolate or separate it. In terms of the -- and we do think, over time, there will be a capital that will be freed up as a result of that. In terms of your question on DAC and everything, I'm going to turn to Chris.

Randy, a couple of points. One, I agree with Liam. And I think what we've been trying to communicate clearly is that as the block runs off, capital will be freed up, not necessarily literally, probably, generally, just take more time. And of the $7.6 billion of, I'll call it, statutory surplus, we have in all the legal entities. I mean, that's our -- our objective is to maximize that value and trading off maybe potential transactions or other types of things. So we're focused in on statutory. Your point on DAC, obviously, DAC is a GAAP concept, so that doesn't affect statutory results. And a lot of our DAC assumptions, as I said, are updated quarterly, and we still make money on these blocks of business. I mean, they're still earning fees, so we are still following our historic, I'll call it, U.S. GAAP accounting conventions is how we amortize DAC in. Randy Binner - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: Well, yes, I mean, I guess just a follow-up on DAC. I appreciate that they're currently there, but if there was a transaction to separate -- I mean, the stock is trading like $14 below book value. So I think it's -- it would be helpful to just kind of understand that if there was a separation, what would happen to that intangible that's in the GAAP book value?

Yes, I hate to speculate on types of separations, what would be involved and things like that. But any, I'll call it, separation transferred to a third party of any liabilities, we'd have to account for that in proceeds and have a gain or loss that's reflective of total proceeds. So in a transaction setting, correct. Randy Binner - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: One more related follow-up, and this is kind of a simple, maybe it's a dumb question. But, I mean -- so the surrenders have been elevated on balance since the runoff decision being made. Is that positive for freeing up capital? Meaning, the faster the VA block runs off, that would lead us to freeing up capital sooner?

Yes. What we're trying to say is that all surrenders, all reductions of account value, are beneficial over the long-term, and that's our goal. And just to give you the perspective, surrenders in '11 ran about 14%, '10, they were about 11%. So they're going to settle in somewhere between 14% and 16% in my judgment going forward. And the block will run off, and we'll look for opportunistic transactions to help accelerate that runoff if they are in a marketplace that we find accretive to shareholders. That's the real strategy, simply, Randy.

Randy, we are laser-focused on all possible ways to accelerate reducing the liabilities and the risk.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS.

A couple of questions here for you. Just first one, on the commercial Middle Market's retention, I'm curious, why the sudden drop-off this quarter? You've been pushing the rate in that business for a while now. Was something different that happened this quarter? Where you pushing a little bit harder on terms and conditions or something?

Brian, this is Doug. I don't think the marketplace was really any different in the second quarter. We are continuing our march to improve our margins. As you know, workers' comp is a priority for us. And so as I reflect on our chief pricing increases and the trade-off on retention, I'm very satisfied with what happened in the second quarter and expect to see more of that moving ahead.

Does it say you expect the retention to stay pretty low for Middle Markets here for a couple more quarters?

I at least think third quarter. We're very pleased with the pricing increases, and as you can tell, our margins are improving. So we feel good about that progress. And at the moment, the trade-off between rate and retention, I think, is a good one for us, and we're going to stay right there.

Great. And then just a quick one over on the personal lines on consumer side. AARP written premium still declining here. Are we getting close to a point where you're comfortable from a profitability standpoint that we're going to start to see that start to pick up here going forward? André A. Napoli: Brian, Andy Napoli here. Yes, good question. I would say, over the past year, we've had a really nice, strong rebound in new business production, in AARP Direct and Agency, you can see that in the numbers. That's probably at a level that relative to total premium, where we're comfortable with a new business production at this point at about 12% to 13%. So then you shift the conversation to retention. We've had 2 points improvement in retention on a year-over-year basis. We've got a little bit more ground to make up there. I see growth to the division being flat in 2013. And as I think about the factors that could influence that, we're experiencing a rate need relative to -- or because of the increase in physical damage severity that I think is pervasive across the industry, and we'll have to sort of dynamically manage how we price that into our business going forward. And that's something we're going to pay very close attention to.

Your next question comes from the line of Vincent DeAugustino with Stifel, Nicolaus. Vincent M. DeAugustino - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division: The press release mentioned 7% renewal price increases for Middle Market, and I think it also mentioned overall increases of 10% for the same segment. And I'm -- if I'm thinking about that correctly, I should be able to attribute the GAAP to even stronger new business pricing. Am I thinking about that right?

No. Let me adjust your thinking just a bit. First point I'd make is, although it looks relatively flat quarter-over-quarter, 7% versus 7%, actually, there was an increase in the second quarter. We rounded up the first quarter. It was 6.6%, and the second quarter came in roughly at 7.4%. So there is positive movement in the second quarter that we feel good about, and actually, that positive movement really runs across our lines, including comp, which we spoke to. The new business environment really sits outside of the pricing disclosures that we've shared with you. So I would separate those 2. And we can talk about them separately, but they're really 2 different topics. Vincent M. DeAugustino - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division: So -- sorry, I'm just a little confused in the difference between the 7% and the 10%.

I think the 10% was a Middle Market pricing, and the 7% was the combination of our Small and our Middle together. Vincent M. DeAugustino - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division: Okay, I see. I'm sorry about that. And then also, you mentioned earlier in your comments that mutual fund marketing initiative is going to ramp up in the second half. Would you be able to say what the incremental expense would be there or would this be de minimis?

I generally think it's rounding. I mean, it's people more than anything. So it will be -- the compensation will be tied to sales and things like that, but it's pretty de minimis, Vince.

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Finkelstein with Evercore Partners.

I guess sort of a follow-up on the prior question. I guess how would you characterize the rate environment? I think you just said that 6.6% in the first quarter, 7.4%. Do you see this stabilizing? Do you see further momentum as you look at kind of the June and July results or any slippage?

We see a relatively stable environment. I would look at the last 60 days and think about May and June and be encouraged by the improving signals. But overall, we see a relatively stable environment that we expect will move into the third quarter.

Okay. And then when you think about, I guess, Small Commercial in particular, how would you characterize the rate increases relative to your assumptions around lost cost trend?

At or slightly exceeding would be my answer in the Small Commercial space. It's a very strong line for us. You can see our returns, as noted in the supplement. And our mid single-digit pricing increases are essentially right on our trends.

Okay. I guess can you just talk a little bit about -- the overall development was, in ongoing businesses was largely flattish, I mean, some favorable coming out of the cats. But the one notable was I think the $43 million of adverse development in workers' comp. Can you just talk about that and whether there's any changes in how you're looking at, I guess, the reserve levels based on the trend that you saw this quarter?

Sure. Our view of the comp book really hasn't changed in the last 90 days. We did some tuning in the second quarter. I'd characterize out of the $43 million, roughly, $25 million of that was in accident year 2011. We're watching carefully those trends. We had some medical losses that moved to med and indemnity, but nothing that I would say would be significant or out of pattern. As you know, we call our reserves straight up as we see them in the quarter. So we did do some adjusting in the quarter, but I feel like we're all over the issues, we're watching them carefully. As we've mentioned in the past, we feel positive about the improving claim incidence trends inside our book of business. So we're very bullish about an improving go-forward comp book and the fact that we've got our arms around our prior books.

Okay. And then I guess just one question on Group Benefits. I mean, the results were more favorable, I think, than most have expected, including myself, but it sounds like it was largely group Life and AD&D. And I'm trying to understand how much of that is just good luck versus some core margin expansion, particularly on the disability side that we should be thinking about as trendable.

This is Doug again. As Chris mentioned, our run rate for the year still looks like it's going to be flat with 2011, which is in that 80, 85 range. As I think about the quarter, clearly, it was $5 million to $6 million of favorable Life and AD&D experience, and there's some good things on the expense side that were kind of one-timers. So when I look at the quarter and think about Chris' comment about overall 2012 performance, I think we're right on pretty solid run rate.

Your next question comes from the line of Chris Giovanni with Goldman Sachs.

I guess one additional question just on the VA runoff book. We're starting, I guess, to see some competitors that are trying to accelerate the runoff, offer lump-sum payments. Can you comment if this is something you're exploring the regulatory and capital considerations for doing so? And then lastly, just any comments on appetite from external participants in the VA market.

I'll take the first one, and I'll leave the second one for Chris. We're well aware of what a couple of players are doing to your point in product. I would say, Chris, we are exploring, under Beth's leadership, every possible area for accelerating the runoff, including that concept. As you know very well, guarantees differ from insurance company to insurance company, and there is no evidence yet that, actually, consumers will make that trade. But notwithstanding all that, we are aggressively looking at that. But that is one of many work streams that we're considering with great urgency and diligence because we're determined to reduce the book as quickly as we can. Chris, any comments you'd make on Chris' second question?

Yes, I think your question really was an appetite in VA transactions. I would say, right now, it's very early, Chris. I don't think there is much appetite at all in the marketplace right now, so we would continue to explore, continue to have discussions and thinking. But as far as real appetite, it's just not there yet.

Okay. So should we take that sort of a sense the decision was reached in March, sort of the opportunities as you saw them at the time are really pretty consistent today with where you saw things back in March?

Yes, I would say so. I mean, I think what we're trying to say, hopefully, as clearly as possible, that the opportunities are probably more short-term based on the fixed block businesses, and that will take longer time on the VA. So I think there is good interest. We've seen transactions, you've seen transactions in fixed annuity space, our fixed annuities' structured settlements, terminal funding. Those are all blocks of business that we're exploring, what is the most economic to do for the long-term.

Okay. And then just one quick one...

Chris, if I might add, I totally concur with what Chris Swift just said. And as the environment evolves, and we expect that it will, we fully understand the potentially positive effect on shareholder value, if there are transactions that make sense to get some of these block-off off of our book. And we have a mindset consistent with that sentiment.

Okay. Understood. And then just a quick one for Doug. I guess specifically on the rate you're getting in the Mid Market comp book, the 16% that you guys alluded to. Can you comment about how much of that rate is needed purely just based on the decline in interest rates?

So let me take that in 2 pieces. Clearly, we feel like we're out in front of trends and improving our margins across our comp lines, for sure. When we look at the change in the yield, I would say, across our Middle comp lines, the pressure for more rate is roughly in the 4 to 5 range over time that we need to get to make up what I'll call 200 -- 150- to 200-basis-point change over the last 6 quarters.

Your next question comes from the line of Tom Gallagher with Crédit Suisse. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: I just, first, wanted to follow up on the VA restructuring opportunities a little bit. So if I've heard you correctly, especially with the comments Chris just made, if we used the hypothetical, fast forward it to year-end, assuming your -- the 2 other property sales transactions are consummated, so you have those proceeds or at least the anticipation of those proceeds, there's nothing in the environment today, again, I'm kind of pro forming this, that would suggest there would be a third-party transaction market solution for restructuring the VA book, based on what you're seeing today. Thus, is it fair to conclude, if I'm right on that, that buybacks would be the preferred use of proceeds, assuming nothing changes in the environment today? Is that a fair way to think about it?

Tom, going back to the remarks I made, the formal remarks, we do intend to pay down some debt, as you would understand, to manage our leverage and debt service coverage ratios, to protect our ratings and take shareholder accretive actions. I think either one of those, whether that would be share buybacks or transactions that would economically and appropriately get the -- some part of the annuity book, a block off of our books would both be shareholder-accretive. If there's not -- I can't speculate on what's going to be happening at a particular given time, but it is clear to say that among the most accretive things we could do today at the share price self-evident, where it is would be to buy back shares. But we're going to be -- our measure is what is the most accretive thing for shareholders. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay. And just in terms of -- can you also just discuss a little bit about what is the main impediment or challenge as you think about restructuring opportunities? I'm not even asking for something so specific, but as you think about what potentially can be done here, is there -- is the most likely course here, having a third party involved that assumes the liability? Would it be actually legally separating the liability through some kind of spin-off of the business where there isn't a third party involved per se? And then also if you could just mention whether the whole captive reinsurance encumbers your opportunity set here.

Tom, it's Chris. The challenge, I'll call it succinctly, is, I mean, if you look at the balance sheet, we have about $165 billion of liabilities that are in runoff in the Life group. So one, it's obvious, just the sheer size and scale. There's not going to be, I'll call it, 1 solution, 1 silver bullet. So the way we're thinking about it right now, I mean, this will be a series of moves over a longer period of time to eventually transfer runoffs, isolate, separate these liabilities. So there isn't going to just be 1 thing. I think I've always said, Tom, and particularly, I know you know, I mean, if you really look at the fundamentals of the U.S. and Japan, they're different. The U.S. block from a relative risk perspective or relative size and its components are fixed and variable, actually, it's a balanced portfolio liabilities. Japan, on the other hand, I think from a shareholder value perspective, is the greatest opportunity we have to manage that in the most accretive way long term. So whether that be a short-term transaction or that would be long-term, just managing the cash flows as effectively as possible, those are the things that we're thinking about and modeling and working very diligently on. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And Chris, any issues with captive re and whether or not -- I think there's some level of speculation out there that because the way the captive reinsurance is capitalized, the captive reinsure is capitalized, that it would take years and years before you could release capital out of these businesses. Is there any truth to that? Or maybe you can comment on that.

No. I don't think the reinsurance structure has anything to do with capital movements and release. And as you know, we have 2 captives: one that manages our XXX program that will be dealt with in the sales process; and then White River, which is our Vermont-based captive. So is there -- I mean, it is -- just view it as a way to manage RBC and risk-based capital between the 2 organizations. So they go hand-in-hand, but there are no structural limitations, just to be clear, on how and when we would release capital because of that structure.

Your next question comes from the line of Bob Glasspiegel with Langen McAlenney.

Chris, I wanted to just push you a little bit on -- you said the stat capital is really the most important consideration over the near term, which I agree. Could you amplify your answer to John's question of the stress test of $1.50 [ph] 10-year for 5 years, whether there would be any statutory implications to that?

Bob, I know you know the answer. I mean, low interest rates over a longer period of time won't be good, and I think we've discussed in prior quarters managing cash flow testing, C3 Phase 1 implication. So all that would come into the mix, Bob. And you never want to be, I'll call it, totally predictive and judgmental, but those would be issues everyone in the industry would have to face, including The Hartford, in the amount of additional reserves and capital we would have to put up for interest rates if we're 5 years out.

Okay. Just a rough sense of like number of years of $1.50 [ph] 10-year that you can withstand before it becomes a stress.

Well, again, I'm not going to try to predict the precise number, so it's hard. All I could say though from a current point of view, I mean, we do have cash flow testing reserves up for blocks that see compression of spreads out 5, 6 years right now. So we're dealing with it right now. I think you're ultimately asking about the pace of that, and I'm not going to be in a position to predict that right now.

Okay. And just -- as I read your comments on sort of pausing on capital until 2013, you want to keep some flexibility to deal with runoff more seriously. Is there a maximum statutory hit that you'd be willing to take on the runoff business? Is there sort of a borderline -- how much flexibility do you have?

I think from a pure financial side, we have a lot of flexibility. I think the calculus that Liam referred to is -- will it create shareholder value, and that's the math and calculus we'll go through, when and if we're presented with transactions.

Okay. So there's no sort of upper bound on how much of a hit you'd be willing to take, even though it would make sense to get rid of it from an economic point of view.

Yes, I think what you have to think about, Bob, is on 1 individual transaction, what does it mean for the rest of the block, the rest of the liability? So I mean, it is, I'll call it, a complex equation because, again, it's not just 1 transaction. So if for say you wanted to take a hit, what does that do for the other liabilities? What does that do to your stress scenario? So those are all the things that we would consider.

Thank you. And Darlene, I know we're bumping up against somebody else's conference call. So for those of you who are in the queue, thank you very much. I'll be happy to follow up with you after the calls today. We appreciate your interest in The Hartford, and the IR team is here today and available for any follow-up questions you may have after the call. Thank you.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.