Good morning, and welcome to Starwood Hotels & Resorts First Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I will now turn the call over to Mr. Stephen Pettibone, Vice President of Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.

Thank you, Sylvia, and thanks to all of you for dialing in to Starwood's First Quarter 2014 Earnings Call. Joining me today are Frits van Paasschen, our CEO and President; and Vasant Prabhu, our Vice Chairman and CFO. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that our discussions during this conference call will include forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements, and forward-looking statements made today are effective only as of today. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise these statements. The factors that could cause actual results to differ are discussed in Starwood's annual report on Form 10-K and in our other SEC filings. You can find a reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures discussed in today's call on our website at www.starwoodhotels.com. With that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Frits for his comments.

Thank you, Stephen and welcome, everybody, to our Q1 earnings call. For my prepared remarks, I'll follow my usual format and cover 4 main topics. First, I'll look at the business climate and our results in the quarter; second, some further comments on our business in China; third, a few observations on rising travel in emerging markets; and finally, our approach to global growth in cities around the world. Turning now to my first topic, the quarter. Overall, the global economy generally and the lodging recovery in particular continued to bounce along, with once again some markets doing better and others doing worse. This year's begun pretty much along the same trend line that we've been seeing since the end of the economic crisis. Across mature markets, namely North America, Japan and Europe, growth and demand showed a steady improvement on last year and from what we can see, conditions are set to stay along that same trajectory. What our customers are telling us jives with the macro view that rising productivity and low inflation have set the stage for more steady growth. That bodes well for our business in mature markets. But that same positive outlook also prompted the Fed start tapering QE, which had ripple effects across the fast-growing or emerging markets around the world. The drop in liquidity came hand-in-hand with concerns about economic and political risk in some emerging economies. And as we've said before, if you're casting about the world looking for things to worry about, there's plenty to find, whether its China's tighter credit markets and lower growth rates, political turmoil in Thailand, or Argentine currency devaluation, or most ominously, unrest in the Ukraine and Russian actions in Crimea. Looking ahead this year, we'll also see some milestone elections in places like Brazil, Egypt,…

Thank you, Frits, and good morning to you all. We've had a good start to the year. We exceeded our expectations for the first quarter with great revenue momentum, strong margin performance and profits ahead of forecast. Driving these results were our 2 largest businesses, the U.S. and China, which fired on all cylinders. Helped by Macau, China grew REVPAR in the double-digits, which we have not seen in a while. The U.S, helped by the Easter shift delivered REVPAR growth at the high end of the range. Asia, x China, was also strong despite sharp declines in Thailand. Europe remains stable but sluggish. Elsewhere, there were the usual pluses and minuses. All in all, the first quarter sets up well to meet or exceed our goals for the year. As always, we'll take a quick trip around the globe. I'll finish with some comments on asset sales and capital allocation. North America delivered 7% REVPAR growth in Q1 despite the harsh weather. Adjusting for the Easter shift into April, this momentum has continued into Q2. Driving growth is very strong corporate demand. Corporate business, both transient and group, is robust and shows no signs of slowing down. As we anticipated, the corporate traveler is back on the road trying to drive sales growth. Professional services and technology, 2 of our largest segments, grew double-digits in the quarter. Group business continues to pace in the mid-single-digits with smaller group corporate business especially strong while larger group association business remains weak. Due to weather, the Northeast, Midwest and Eastern Canada were weak in Q1. With the winter behind us, we hope to see improvement in these regions. The West and South grew double-digits in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Los Angeles. Occupancies have continued to climb past prior peaks.…

Thank you, Vasant. We'd now like to open up the call to your questions. [Operator Instructions] Sylvia, can we have the first question, please?

Your first question comes from Carlo Santarelli from Deutsche Bank.

So guys, I obviously respect your views on the buyback, and clearly that the capital return story has been present in different forms. But Frits, I believe, in your prepared remarks, you did highlight how Starwood has tried to focus on the long-term and long-term trends as they relate to the growth potentials for your brands. And I think obviously, as you identified one of the major controversies right now and potentially one of the reasons for the underperformances as some investors would call out is the clarity of the buyback story relative to some of your peers. Do you feel at any point where you start to look at the ROI implied by maybe a more aggressive buyback as a way of manifesting that long-term view in the near term and buying more of a company that you're bullish on longer-term?

Yes, Carlo, thanks for the question. And I think that you among others have been vocal in calling this out. I do want to go back, though, and clarify a statement I made. The reason for our underperformance in the first quarter, if I were to hazard a guess, had more to do with the emerging market selloff than lack of clarity around buybacks. I don't think that our buyback strategy in fact got suddenly less clear in the first quarter after a great performance of our stock over the course of 2013. Then I haven't even [ph] said, and I don't mean to be snarky in that answer, but the other aspect of the short-term versus the long-term piece is that as the world zigs and zags, we believe we will come into some opportunities or potentially could based on what's happened historically where our stock may trade at more of a discount to its intrinsic value. So that's something that we're going to continue to work on. And as Vasant said, we're going to keep recalibrating both that view into valuation, as well as the outlook to determine what our level of buybacks are going to be. So we're going to continue to look at this, and we're well aware of the question based on what you said among others.

The only thing I would add, Carlo, is that you shouldn't forget we returned $190 million back in the first quarter and, given what we've said about our quarterly dividend and our quarterly special dividend, that is a pretty reliable amount of cash you're going to get back each quarter this year, and it's a nontrivial amount and we still have flexibility to deploy more cash in terms of returning it to shareholders through buybacks, and so we have $600 million in authorization. So again, 1 or 2 quarters don't tell you what the long-term game plan is in terms of returning cash to shareholders.

Your next question comes from Thomas Allen from Morgan Stanley.

So since announcing your disposition strategy early last year, you sold about $500 million of real estate in about a year. Would you be surprised to do less than that in the year ahead? And then just second part of this question is kind of should we read your recent actions suggesting that as you sell your hotels, you prefer to use that capital to pay special dividends than buying back stocks, kind of assuming your stock price appreciates in a reasonable fashion?

Yes. So in answer to your first question around -- and obviously, we knew that people would do something like what you just did, which is, gosh, if you're going to sell $4 billion -- or $3 billion over 4 years, that means $750 million a year. The first year, you're at $500 million, you're behind. And, of course, I think we were pretty clear that we were going to be subject to what the marketing conditions look like and whether we could find both the right owners to work with and the right agreements to manage our hotels on their behalf. The good news, I think, is and this isn't to speculate that we'd sell more, although I think the indications would suggest that, is that we have more hotels on the market now than we've had at in any time since the crisis, and that's in response to what we see to be a deeper and broader market in terms of hotel asset sales, as Vasant referred to, as well as strong performance of our properties. So the likelihood is, if that situation persists for 12 months, that we would sell more than we did over the last 12 months, but do please keep in mind that there were couple ifs in that statement. In terms of preference for special dividend versus buyback, I think, again, we're going to keep recalibrating how we want to return cash to shareholders depending on the situation as we see it. I think what we've been very clear about is the fact that we do intend to use all 3 levers, a consistent dividend, a special dividend and a buyback, as we see fit at any given moment. So -- and Vasant, you may want to add something.

I think what we've done is we've tried to create maximum flexibility both for us and you, our shareholders. We have maximum flexibility because we have all 3 avenues. We have said that we have a very healthy regular dividend, one of the best yields in our sector. We now have a special dividend that is quarterly, that gives us a structure that can be continued if it makes sense. And we've said that we will consider continuing it as a way to return cash from asset sales or other sources. And we have the ability to do buybacks at whatever level we want. So that gives us a lot of flexibility and it gives you, our shareholders, a lot of flexibility, too because you get a significant amount back in cash that you can deploy based on your own assessments, as well as when we do buybacks, you get reductions in share counts. So I think what you should view our approach as being -- as one that offers flexibility. Maybe it doesn't give you the quarterly predictability that some of you might want.

Your next question comes from Steven Kent from Goldman Sachs.

Just -- I'm sorry to ask 2 questions. But North America systemwide REVPAR grew 7.1%, but the owned portfolio grew 5.5%. Could you just give us a little bit of color on that, why there's that discrepancy? And then just from a strategic perspective, you just noted that the buyers of assets in the market is very deep, getting deeper, it sounds very strong there, but you also said that you may want to buy your own stock at a different point because there could be volatility in the broader global environment. Is your view that the buyers of hotels would have a different view than you? So what I'm saying is, if the market or the economy were to decline significantly over the next 2 years, wouldn't those same people who were going to buy a hotel also be hesitant? That's where I'm having trouble understanding the 2 strategies at the same time.

I'll take the first one on your North American owned hotels. Our owned hotels, as you know, is a fairly small portfolio right now. I think we're down to less than 20 hotels in North America, if I remember right. There's a heavy skew towards Canada. There's a skew towards New York. And so when you throw that in, you can see why they would underperform, the country as a whole, given what the first quarter was like in the North. So I don't think our North American owned hotels are representative anymore of what the country, as a whole, is doing and it's purely geographic. On your second question, I'm not sure I fully understood what you were getting at. Clearly, our view is the long-term opportunities in our business are very attractive and we remain very bullish. We are returning $800 million roughly back to shareholders this year, which is effectively committed and reliable and you can count on it, and that cash is available to our shareholders to -- if they want to redeploy it back into our stock, which, of course, we think is a good investment. In terms of buybacks, we have an authorization, and we will use it whether that is in one particular quarter or not, that depends on circumstances. I don't think it says anything about our long-term views of the business. I don't know. I'm not exactly sure, Steve, if there was something I was missing, but I don't know, Frits, do you want to add?

Yes, I might try to clarify both. First of all, with respect to the first question, our owned REVPAR is -- now reflects a handful of properties versus several hundred that are otherwise in our system. And I think you would understand that in some quarters, that would shift one way or the other. In fact, that's been the case for some time as you've been watching our company. With respect to the second part, I didn't say the market was very deep, so let's just be really clear again. I said that the market is deeper and broader than it has been for some time and we have more assets on the market than we have before. And I think you're trying to play games with words in terms of the rest of your question. I think what you mean is are we somehow missing the point that if we can't sell our hotels for great prices, our stock will be lower. The reality is we're going to sell hotels when we have partners and when we have situations where that makes sense, and we've been very clear about that over time. We've also been very clear about the fact that we'll continue to look at where our stock is trading relative to value as we look at buybacks.

Your next question comes from Ryan Meliker from MLV. Ryan Meliker - MLV & Co LLC, Research Division: Just a question I had with regards to the Aloft Tucson transaction, I guess, any implications from it. It looked like, and correct me if I'm wrong or maybe provide a little detail, that you guys incurred about a $36 million write-down in the first quarter. How much of that was associated with that Aloft in Tucson? And obviously, you guys sold it for $19 million, so I'm wondering if there was a substantial write-down with regards to the cost you incurred for the acquisition and then redevelopment of that asset. And then are there any implications with regards to the write-down of the costs that it might take to convert one of these assets that might be limiting your Aloft growth across the U.S.? Obviously, you guys are still only around 80 hotels now 10 years after the inception of the brand in 2005.

Yes. No, I think there's a lot of misconceptions in that question. And if there are those out there, it's good that we have the opportunity to answer that. The impairment was not related strictly to the Aloft. There was a small impairment on that particular asset, but that's because of historical considerations. That was a very old hotel that was on that location that went back to days prior to the current version of Starwood. As you know, Starwood originated as a hotel REIT. There were some assets that predated the acquisition of ITT Sheraton. There were a variety of step-ups along the way, so there were book values that went back awhile. We did spend money to convert it to an Aloft. If you look at the ROI on the conversion and what the realistic sort of market value of the land was and all that, we got a good return. The impairments were other things, including a transaction that is close to completion where we're converting a leased hotel to a long-term management contract, which we hope will get done in the next week or 2, and we can tell you more about it on our next call, and then a couple of other things. So it was not linked to that particular sale. Alofts are doing well. We have a good pipeline of Alofts around the world, and in the U.S., they continue to increase their REVPAR index. And if you speak to owners, I think you'll get a very positive response from them.

Yes, this is Frits, I'm just going to add a couple of things to what Vasant said to reinforce the point. The first is that both with the Tucson redevelopment, as well as the San Francisco Airport redevelopment for Aloft, we did that to be able to prove the case and understand for ourselves what the economics would be to make substantial conversions like those 2 projects were. And if we look at both of those projects as though we were a real estate investor, we would have been happy with the return that we got there, which was in fact the point of doing the project. The second piece is, just to be clear, the Aloft brand first opened its doors, I want to say 5 years ago, not 10. And to get to 80 hotels in 5 years and to be on track to get to 100 hotels in the next year or so, I think it would be a short list of hotel brands that have been launched in the last decade that in their first 6 or 7 years of operation would have gone to 100 properties with a worldwide footprint. And as Vasant said, in terms of REVPAR index, the ramping up of the pipeline and then the performance of the brand, we're actually quite happy with how it's doing.

Your next question comes from Felicia Hendrix from Barclays.

Vasant, you gave us some good color on the strength of the corporate and group bookings. I was wondering if you could give us some more detail on rate there. What are you seeing for this year and next year, and I are you seeing an increased appetite for spending on F&B. And also, if I may just weigh in on the capital allocation subject here, I think the other side of the question that investors have is, and have it for us a lot is, what are you doing with the other balance sheet? I mean, it's clearly not additive to value, so folks are definitely wondering why you're not being more aggressive there.

Yes, in terms of corporate business, obviously, in the U.S., for sure, and generally around the globe, corporate transient is a huge bright spot. I mean, we've said for a long time that our business is driven very much by the global corporations, and global corporations are doing very well and that is evident in their spending. Overall, rates are in the mid-single-digits in some of these corporate negotiated rates. Certainly, corporate groups are the healthiest of all the group business. Corporate group business does tend to be booked with shorter lead times, but the trends are all very strong, and not just in the U.S., they're strong in Europe and they're strong in Asia, so it's a global phenomenon. In general, we see no change in that trend. And if you look across segments we've talked about, we tend to be high-end, and so we get a lot from professional services, very strong, and these would be the consulting/accounting firms, high-tech, very strong. Pharmaceutical is doing okay. Finance is okay. But overall, in terms of F&B, yes, there continues to be a desire on parts of corporate accounts to manage F&B spending, but it's not a significant issue. So net-net, it's all plus. The second question was, I missed that one. We'll move to the next one.

Your next question comes from Joseph Greff from JPMorgan. Joseph Greff - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Before I ask my question, I just want to make a comment. Frits, you said twice that you believe that your share price underperformance is a function of geography in emerging markets. I would say it's the lack of capital return in the form of buyback that's caused underperformance relative to other stocks, and we're hearing it from investors. You guys should hear that and be appreciative of that. And you've talked about your capital allocation. I guess, my question on the capital allocation from here and incremental discussion on special dividend is, when you think about special dividends, do you think about spreading out each special dividend, much like what you announced a couple of month ago, or would you look at it as more onetime in nature?

I think in terms of special dividends, by creating a quarterly structure, we give ourselves the flexibility to either adjust the quarterly dividend, but we're not averse to doing onetime special dividends, too, if it makes sense. As you know, we did that when we did the Host transaction. We returned, I think, $2.8 billion to you in the form of stock, as well as some cash as a special dividend. Again, you shouldn't suggest -- you shouldn't see special dividends as our only approach to returning cash. We do believe in buybacks. We do believe that reducing our share count is a valuable thing to do, so we will calibrate between the 2 and we're not wedded to special dividends per se as the only way to return cash to shareholders.

Your next question comes from David Loeb from Baird. David Loeb - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: My first question, and then I'll give you the follow-up. We've been hearing that you had been marketing a group of 6 North American hotels. Are you also marketing a large number of international hotels? You did mention that you were marketing hotels in Asia and Europe. We've only heard about one larger asset in Asia. And then as a follow-up to Ryan's question, Lightstone actually reported an 8.8% to 2014 expected cap rate on that Aloft Tucson transaction. Do you think that valuation reflects the brand, or is it more related to the market?

On the second one, it's -- there are different ways in which people can look at this, and it reflects potentially the market. It's Tucson, it's not a major market. In terms of your first question...

David, it's our practice not to comment on anything, rumors in the market related to transactions, one way or another. When we get to the point when we're ready to talk to you about something, we'll let you know.

Yes, but the fact is, as I said in my comments, we have assets on the market in Asia. We have assets on the market in Europe, and not individual assets, but multiple assets -- not single assets, but multiple assets. And yes, we have a lot of hotels that are in the market in the U.S. But again, I mean, there are all kinds of rumors out there. There've been various press reports. It's not our practice to comment on individual things, but we will announce these sales as they happen.

Your next question comes from Shaun Kelley from Bank of America.

So just -- I'm going to avoid the obvious question on capital returns. But I actually wanted to turn to something else. Frits, last quarter, you talked some about technology and in the last month or so, the topic of Airbnb has become one that -- we've actually gotten a number of kind of longer-term investor questions about. So I'd like to turn the question over to you and get your thoughts on how disruptive do you think a technology like Airbnb is to the hotel industry? And kind of what segments of your business do you think that you could see an impact from a technology like this, whereas other segments that you think might be a lot more protected?

Yes. Look, I think that the growth in Airbnb is a real phenomenon. I think the perspective that anything that reflects on more healthy demand for travel and encouraging people to get out, just like discount airlines as well, is generally a good thing for travel, not the other way around. The reality is that our focus in terms of technology is on the loyalty of the guests that we've been talking about for a while. And as you get to the high end and as you get to people who want to be taken care of when they travel, that's the segment that we compete in, and that's the one that continues to grow around the world. I do think there will continue to be disruptive technologies in different ways that people both buy and deliver lodging. But in some respects, if you go back 10 years to the rise of the OTAs and how I think there was a great deal of concern or question about whether that was going to disrupt the industry, OTAs, to us, are a very steady single-digit percentage of our revenue overall systemwide. What's really growing for us is our own Web and mobile channels. And when it comes to technology, our ability to know what people's preferences are, to be able to make our hotels more able to deliver on those preferences, and to give people offers that are targeted to their behavior and what they've expressed, either through their behavior or by telling us, I think are some incredible opportunities for companies like ourselves to leverage technology to deliver better experiences to our brand. So net-net, I see technology as increasing the opportunity for our business. And if you look at the travel intensity of the world today and the growth in travel, I think that's the most important driver. If the only thing that were happening in the world were the expansion of Airbnb, you might be concerned, but it's happening concurrent with a whole bunch of other things, many of which I think are extraordinarily favorable to our business model.

Your next question comes from Robin Farley from UBS.

Great. I wanted to ask about the pace of management fees through the year, because it looks like in Q1, it was helped by termination fees. And so first of all, I guess I wanted to ask if that was in your guidance when you gave it. And then -- and it didn't raise your full year guidance. Your full year guidance is unchanged. But excluding the termination fees, your other management incentive fee growth was kind of below that 10% to 12% guided range. So I'm wondering if you could just comment on sort of how you see the pace of that in the rest of the year?

Robin, we, in fact, anticipated that. It was not entirely certain, but we knew that it was likely in the first quarter, which is why our first quarter, I think, guidance range for fee growth was in the 10% to 12%, whereas, our full year range was 8% to 10%. So it was not a surprise. It does reflect what happened in the first quarter. Our full year range is still 8% to 10%. Our second quarter range is also 8% to 10%, and that is the rate that we see as one that's sustainable, and you're right about your question.

Your next question comes from Smedes Rose from Evercore.

Frits, in your opening remarks, you said you, for now, wanted to play it safe. And I just wanted to ask you, is that kind of pertain to the kind of balance sheet that I think most people would argue as kind of underlevered, here with low debt and high cash balance, or is it more a comment on reinvesting in the hotel business now through a brand acquisition or things that you've maybe done in the past. Just wanted a little more clarity on that.

Yes, yes. Good question, thank you, Steve. I think the reality is this, that over the long term, and I think this is something that we've been trying to emphasize now for some time as we talk about our business. Over the long term, we see extraordinary continued growth in demand for high-end travel in the particular for our brands. Quarter-to-quarter, as sentiment among investors and travelers changes, we see a great deal more volatility. And so what we've said all along is that we want to be aggressive in investing in technology and investing in building a platform by which we build loyalty among high-end travelers and also customers that -- for whom many of those high-end travelers work. Where we want to play it safe are on areas like maintaining a cost structure so that if the world turns upside down we don't have costs that we need to go back and cut in a significant way. We've talked about playing it safe more specifically as it relates to our balance sheet. And then, I think the question about investing back into the hotel business, if by that you mean investing in hotels, I think, again, over the long term our strategy is pretty clearly stated, is that we want to become asset lighter and have 80% of our earnings driven by fees. At the same time, and I think again, we've been pretty clear about this for the last few quarters, we have invested in our existing properties in a pretty significant way, believing that as the world improves and as the asset sale market improves, having hotels that are in good shape that don't have, as people say, any significant hair on them, makes them more sellable and easier to sell to a broader pool of buyers, and we've certainly been willing to invest in that direction. In terms of investing, though, in the fee part of the business, most of that's going into demand creation in the form of building out the attractiveness of SPG and in making sure that we can be better at tracking and delivering on people's preferences and make our brands, brands that resonate with people with a solid, distinct and compelling positioning. So a bit of a multi-faceted answer, though, to a question, I think, that was pretty sweeping.

Yes, I think there's no holding back on investment in terms of future growth. So our infrastructure spending in the growth parts of the world like Africa and the Middle East and like Asia continues at double-digit levels. You've seen us invest quite heavily in our technology platform that Frits referred to, which is creating new capabilities that we think create a lot of value for our guests. We've definitely invested whatever we need to, to create the pipeline, which is very healthy, especially in international markets. So as Frits said, where we play it safe is in places where there isn't a lot of growth. We've, in fact, scaled back where we can on our infrastructure in the, let's call it, the mature markets, but there's absolutely no holding back on investment in where we see long-term growth.

Your next question comes from Kevin Varin from Citi.

Can you just comment on the investor demand for international hotels specifically? What does the buyer pool look like?

Well, it's specific to the nature of our hotels. So as you know, in Europe, a lot of our hotels would fall into what you might call one-of-a-kind trophy-type hotels. The buyer for those hotels is typically not an institutional buyer. It tends to be a private ultra-high-net-worth buyer, so that's what you would see in Europe. In Asia, certainly, there's a lot of money in certain parts of Asia. So even though our hotel may be in Australia, for example, the money would come from outside Australia for deployment into Australia. Certainly, in the U.S. the buyer base is institutional. And what we're seeing in the U.S., as we said on our last call is for the past several years, we were only able to sell hotels in ones and twos because the primary buyer was public REITs who would buy a hotel, issue some stock and then come back for another hotel. What we're seeing now, of course, is much more private equity money and, therefore, a greater interest in portfolio sales. So we would be more interested in now looking at portfolio sales to private equity or other institutional buyers in the U.S. So it varies by region.

Yes. I think just to amplify on that, in terms of international demand, the 2 big geographic pools of money would be the Middle East and then the other would be China, although I would say broadly speaking, not just PRC China, but ethnic Chinese in other markets throughout Asia. And aside from that, you do have some sovereign wealth money, although we haven't seen a lot of that in discussions around asset sales. And then, of course, as Vasant mentioned, you do see some firms throughout markets outside of the U.S. but not as many as you would in the U.S., certainly.

Your next question comes from Joel Simkins from Crédit Suisse. Joel H. Simkins - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: You spoke a little bit earlier about Europe and what you're seeing there. It seems like gradual, albeit a bit modest improvement. I guess, what would sort of change your -- or would you sort of see that improve from these levels? And then as you look at sort of the recovery in Europe right now, what's sort of the composition between business versus leisure at this point?

Yes. So as you know, Joel, our business worldwide is 70% to 75% B2B. And so clearly, sort of corporate confidence is really important to us. Europe is slightly different in that we have a number of destination hotels, particularly in Italy, but also across France, Spain, U.K. and so forth. And so some of the outbound demand among affluent leisure travelers is important for Europe as well. So in that respect and, of course, the summer will tell us a lot more. A particularly strong market for us right now is London. But things do vary a bit quarter-to-quarter. And I guess, the real question is whether we -- what would it take for us to see a real bounce back in Europe. I'm not sure that that's even something that we would plan on in terms of the overall economy. I think what we can hope for is steady improvement in local European demand for European properties, and then the continued growth in inbound travel from North America, Latin America, Middle East and Asia, so -- and I think that would be the real driver of demand, particularly given the destination properties we have in the gateway cities across the region.

Your next question comes from Harry Curtis from Nomura.

Just going back to the pool of buyers for some of your European assets. How many swimmers do you see in the shallow end of the pool if, in fact, there aren't that many folks seeking those kinds of assets, and really, has it changed over the last 12 months? And then the second question is really more of a comment. Again, it's -- you guys are among the best managers in the lodging industry that we know. What do you see out there that we don't see that causes this divide between our perception that you ought to be using your under-levered balance sheet, particularly during periods of time when your stock does get lower? In the first quarter, the stock got down to 73. What are you seeing that makes you more nervous than us?

I think in terms of buyers, on the second question, there's nothing we're seeing that makes us more nervous than you, and I think you're interpreting too much into some of this, and perhaps overstating the case. But we get it. We understand where some investors are coming from on this topic. But in terms of buyers, our European hotel base has always been of a trophy variety, so if you go back in time, you'll see what we've done. The buyer base has changed over time, so in the last cycle, we sold the hotels, like the Danieli, that was an Italian buyer. We sold Danbury, that was a Middle Eastern buyer. We sold a couple hotels on Lido island in Venice, that was also an Italian buyer. Today, we would say that the base of buyers for our Italian hotels tends to be more from outside Europe. It's Middle Eastern, generally, in origin. So it varies. It varies on where money is being deployed. And yes, it's always been fewer buyers than large pools, and these are not auctioned largely -- these are not big auctions. These are very selective -- we think of them very much like collectibles that you would find at a Christie's [ph]. So we're not too surprised by the fact that these would be a small buyer base.

Your final question comes from the line of Nikhil Bhalla from FBR. Nikhil Bhalla - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: Just a very simple question here on the group distribution in your portfolio. If you could just remind us how much of that is in the U.S., what it looks like internationally, that would be great?

In terms of group business, it tends to be more in the U.S. The U.S. may be 1/3, group; 2/3, non-group and non-U.S. is probably more like 1/4 group and 75% nongroup. So clearly, group is more important in the U.S. and U.S. group also tends to have longer lead times.

Thanks, Frits and Vasant. I want to thank all of you for joining us today and for our first quarter earnings call. We appreciate your interest in Starwood Hotels & Resorts. If you have any other questions, feel free to reach out to us. Take care.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's Starwood Hotels & Resorts First Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. You may now disconnect.