Good morning and welcome to our Half Year 2012 Results Presentation. And I'll start -- since I specialize in bad jokes, I'm going to start with my Olympics joke, which is that, "Thank god, there's only 3 million Jamaicans." I checked, it's at least 2.9 million, 2,889,000. Can you imagine what it would be if there were more of them? But anyways, it's great. So Prudential has produced a strong performance during the last 6 months and is on track to deliver on our 2013 "Growth and Cash" objectives, which we set ourselves at our first investor seminar in 2010. I would like to begin by setting the agenda of this meeting. We will follow the usual format. I will start with the highlights of our results for the first half and will comment on a few key aspects of our strategy, with a focus on Asia. I will hand it over to Nic, who will cover our financial performance in more detail, and I'll come back again to talk about our outlook for the rest of the year, and we will then take your questions. Members of our executive team from across the world are dialed into this results presentation. Barry is on the phone. And collectively, we will try to answer any questions that you may have. So my first slide will be very -- the usual one. And I'll start with growth, which is the first element of our "Growth and Cash" agenda. We have achieved GBP 1.1 billion of new business profits, which is our key metric, as you know, for life insurance growth, and over GBP 5 billion of asset management net flows. Moving on to our profitability. IFRS operating profit is up 13%, consistent with our continued emphasis on this metric since 2008. EEV…

[indiscernible]

It's on the record. The U.K. has contributed GBP 230 million in net remittances, and similarly to Asia, there will be additional contributions in the second half of the year. And at group level, we're aiming for at least GBP 3.8 billion, net of -- of net remittances cumulatively from 2010 to 2013, and we have delivered 70% of that. So across-the-board, we are on track. Now I would like to use the rest of my section to talk about strategy and how it is playing out in each of our businesses. The growth strategy as you know, is here. It's accelerated long-term growth in Asia by building out distribution, that's really the core of it, and investing in our brand and operations throughout the region; manage our U.S. business through the cycle by maintaining a disciplined approach to balance sheet and capital management; focus our U.K. business on the areas of competitive advantage and allocate capital only on the basis of return and payback; and driving our asset management businesses for growth by focusing on investment performance and distribution. You will have noted that the profits of Eastspring, our Asian asset management business, declined in the first half of the year. This was primarily due to the particularly weak equity markets in Asia in the first half as well as investments we made in building our offshore capabilities. And you will see that we've been in positive net flows, but the external asset under management have decreased because of FX and investment market movements. With growing demand from investors both in and outside Asia looking to access Asian growth, the long-term potential of Eastspring, we believe, remains compelling. So let's now take a closer look at our businesses, starting with Asia. As you can see here, PCA has more…

I'll take that as feedback. Oh, dear. Thank you, Tidjane. Good afternoon, everyone. In my presentation -- I was coming back up with him. Thank you. My presentation will follow the now-familiar theme of "Growth and Cash" with a detailed look at the drivers of our overall profitability before concluding with our capital position and balance sheet. We have provided you with the usual disclosures in the pack, with the only change from last year being the retrospective adoption of the new U.S. deferred acquisition costs rules. We trailed the effect of this change within our prelims in March, and I'm pleased to say that the impact from the half year numbers has been in line with the guidance that we gave you at the time. Let's start with the financial headlines for the first half of 2012, which are summarized on this slide. The strong growth in new business flows this year and the resilient nature of our in-force book have enabled us to maintain the positive momentum in our key financial metrics despite the macroeconomic headwinds. We absorbed the effects of low interest rates to record our highest-ever first half results for both NBP, up 7% to 1-1-4-1 million; and IFRS operating profit, up 13% to 1-1-6-2 million. The impact of lower interest rates is more pronounced on our embedded value profits, but even here, our focus on extracting greater value from our in-force book has meant that the overall profitability was broadly in line with last year at over GBP 2.1 billion. Turning to cash. Net remittances to group have increased to GBP 726 million and the free surplus generated in the period, after financing growth, was strong at over GBP 1 billion. This overall performance is the result of our relentless focus over the last few…

Thanks, Nic. It's time now to -- sorry, can you raise the podium a little bit? Sir, no, no, not yet. Not yet, not yet. I just want to raise the podium, then I'll say my outlook then I'll go to questions. I'm just trying to...

How's that?

Is that possible?

[indiscernible]

Okay, forget it. Okay, so it's time to say a word about our outlook. As you've seen, the group has delivered a good performance in '12 -- in the first half of the year. However, we cannot claim to be immune to the challenging macroeconomic context in which we operate. A track record full of crisis shows that we have managed our business so that it is resilient in terms of economic and financial market stress. The balance sheet remains robust and defensively positioned, and we continue to capitalize on the longer-term growth opportunities for our business. The growth opportunities are most evident in Southeast Asia where, I believe, the depth and breadth for Prudential's franchise is a source of strength. Our businesses are an integral part of the economic and social transformation that has only just started in that part of the world. And we will continue to deliver profitable growth for many years to come, long after the current worries that beset the global economy have passed. And this really comes back to the heart of why I am confident that we can continue to grow earnings long into the future and continue to create value for shareholders. So thank you. We are going to move to Q&A, but we'll just wait to allow all DGs [ph] to join the stage. Can you remove my things? If you -- yes? And you're going to run the Q&A?

Yes. Just remember, at the end, we're going to [indiscernible].

Good point. Thank you. Okay, Barry, you on the phone? Barry?

Yes.

Okay, good. So we're ready. [indiscernible] David?

Okay. We'll start with Jon Hocking.

Jon Hocking from Morgan Stanley. I have three questions, please. Tidjane, in your presentation, you mentioned the similar impact of new business strain from low rates and you mentioned something presumably high [indiscernible] reserves because of lower liability discount rates. You mentioned consumer behavior. I wondered if you could unpick those 2 things and talk a little bit about what that impact was and what you're doing to offset that? That's first question. Second question, on the fixed annuity business. You mentioned you got a trend to 200 basis points of spread over time if rates stay where they are. Would you comment where spreads on new business your pricing at the moment so [indiscernible] between the back book and new business? And then just sort of on the embedded value numbers. It seems to be more of an impact on new business from low rates on the back book [indiscernible]. I'm just wondering what you're assuming in terms of rates on the back book and how you're going to change those assumptions? And you [indiscernible] rates higher than current yields, et cetera?

Thank you, Jon. New business strain. Was few -- I've been in various meetings with me. I used to be annoyed by that trend because I kept saying every year where we can't continue to drive it down, at some point it's going to turn. In a way, I'm glad it did, because it's just kind of a reality check that we can't drive it to 0. It is dependent on the context. Yes, the lower rate increased mechanically the amount of reserves you have hold for any kind of interest rate guaranteed product. So what we've done particularly in Hong Kong where you'll see from the numbers that there's been an impact that were repriced for product that was concerned for the critical illness product, and we repriced it to a level where we were perfectly happy with the performance of the product now. And there's also universal life products in Singapore that we have repriced. So the action we've taken is every time to readjust the pricing and guarantees in the product to be comfortable with the new environment. So you see that, fundamentally, chose in Asia have increasing the strain and in the U.S. too, because with the -- you saw that the FA sales have increased which are more capital intensive. And so reallocation to FA has increased to -- for VAs. Exactly. About a point about Nicolaos making about the other question to equity, interest gone down and the allocation to FS gone up and that drives the strain as well. Plus, I mean, I don't know, Mike, if you want to comment or ...

We've got about 18% of funds now going on the to the dollar cost average bucket, a little more than that on the VA. The balance between that and the number Nic referenced in the equities is some form of debt instrument, typically bond fund. So extremely conservative behavior right now by U.S. investors that's consistent with, again, as we talked about in Asia last year, the gross flows in the U.S. mutual fund business were about the same percentages. Crediting rates. Your comment on the U.S., we're at one. We're as low as it can be and so there's -- spreads are holding up fine on the new sales. But it's -- the consumer effectively has no place to go right now for yields to here.

Nic, do you want to take this spreads in FAs and the trends?

Yes. I mean, the spreads that we are currently securing on new fixed annuity business are around 140 basis points. You'll see that we've moved our embedded value assumption in terms of calculating the new business profitability to that. Part of that reflects the contraction in spreads. Part of that reflects our -- what I was referring to earlier, the cautious stance. Effectively, we're investing one grade higher in terms of credit rating at the moment. And we're very -- we're happy to sacrifice yield, if you like, for now, to keep the balance sheet in a -- of a higher quality. The back book of course is stronger, and therefore, it averages to the 2 3, to the mid-2 30s to 3 [ph] that I referred to earlier.

And the third question was on EV and differential impact of lower rates on new business and...

I think candidly, that's down to mix. I mean, I think different products, different countries behave in different ways. The movements that we've seen in equity markets, the movements that we've seen in interest rates haven't been uniform across our businesses in the first half. Some markets, even in Asia, interest rates have gone up, Indonesia, for example. So it's interplay of all of that, that causes that -- the trend that you've summarized. But look, the important issue on in-force that the growth in the book is absorbing it. The -- we continue to drive greater value from our -- as you -- yet again, prudent operating assumptions. And on the new business, we dial up the pricing to where we've dropped the low hurdle rates here. And so it's -- the behavior remains very disciplined.

But the impact is quite different. If you think about the profit, what you get is a lower transfer, if you get lower rates. If you have a health and protection, it's the opposite. You're discounting that to lower rates, so the NPV goes up. So actually, in some countries, lower rate benefits us. And what Nic was saying is it's going to be a difficult half year to half year or full year to half year. Half year to half year in Indonesia for instance, rates have gone down, but full year to half year, they've gone up, which is a negative, if you're with me. So it's -- the net impact is quite complicated to a degree. We toyed with doing a slide on that, but we were defeated so we don't have it. Up until yesterday we're trying to show you how the interest rates impact the Asia numbers. So it really is quite complicated.

Tidjane, can you pass it back to Kevin and then Nick? Kevin Ryan - Investec Securities (UK), Research Division: It's Kevin Ryan, Investec. I just got a question on REALIC. In the U.S., I think at the time of the acquisition, you mentioned that the life of the book was around 10 years. Could you confirm that, that memory is right? But also related to that, could you say what we can expect in terms of the cash running off as that book runs down and whether how rapidly the cash coming out is going to run down? Just give us a sense of it, please?

Michael and Nic?

I think the duration assumption of 10 is pretty -- we think it's a conservative one and appropriate. I think the best way to think of a signature, not to sound indifferent to, in fact, its clients, but it's a bit like the energy business where over time, as -- with the mature book, you're going to get more mortality experience. So that's where you're getting the change. That's -- is more likely to occur in the [indiscernible] out 10 years, you're going to lose more of the policyholders. So it's not as if it goes off a cliff, so to speak. It's a gradual arc. But I think 10 is a fair assumption.

Okay. Nick Holmes of Nomura. I wanted to ask about economic financial information. I wondered if you're thinking of giving us more economic information about capital and new business. And the reason I asked this is that you are now extremely unusual in not providing economic information on either of these. And I wondered if I could ask 2 specific questions, which is, with economic solvency, which most other companies are focusing on, could you tell us where you think you are? And can you tell us how important the equivalence debate is for you? And secondly, with new business, and Mike, I apologize about focusing on the U.S., but with the U.S. new value, your EEV margin is just sky high compared to MCEV equivalent margins. Now I wondered whether you could talk us through what you think are the main differences and what you would look like on an MCEV basis?

I'll take the first part and probably part of the second, and then, Mike, you can cover. This is a running debate between us. We don't mind being alone as long as we're right. So we don't believe in [indiscernible] so-called market-consistent approaches to valuation of insurance companies and insurance income, we don't, which is why we didn't move to MCEV. We were quite alone in that case. We still think we are right. So Solvency II. The extreme version of Solvency II, I believe, personally, are completely wrong, okay? The versions without any countercyclical premium are completely wrong. And economic capital, it all depends on what you put in it. We would absolutely like to be able to discuss economic capital with you. We've seen in these results seasoned versions of economic capital that are RBC-based. So if that's the yardstick, we think we're very comfortable with that, and we -- I've told you the RBC objective above 400%. And if we move into Solvency regime, that is RBC-based and we call it economic, we'll give you over disclosures you want on that, and that is not a problem. And that is our position. We've been very clear about our belief, theoretical belief, about this debate, where we are, and we don't believe in putting in the market's numbers calculated with methodologies we do not believe in. It's very simple. So we are not going to give you a market-consistent number because we think Solvency, to make a bad and easy analogy, is like oxygen. Okay? You can breathe with 80% of oxygen in the air. It's only when the oxygen rate falls that you feel that you actually need oxygen. Solvency only means anything at times of stress. The big flaw of Solvency II is that it was -- when I used to pushback [indiscernible] in '08 [indiscernible] yes but it works -- look at the June '07 numbers, they are fine. While Solvency in benign conditions is irrelevant. It only matters at times of stress. And it is still my belief at the time of stress, that model [ph] breaks down. So what's the point of moving into a Solvency regime that's going to blow everything up and force you to sell into a depressed market when actually, historically, you've created a stabilizing role in market by being a buy and hold investor. So the whole thing -- if it's like that, it doesn't make sense and I don't see your point in discussing those numbers because we are in stressed markets. And the pure market-consistent approach is, personally, I believe wrong and that's for housing [ph]. And that's how we designed our disclosures and communications to market.

Could I just follow-up on that? I mean, not denying, Tidjane, that you might well be correct, nevertheless, what happens if Solvency II is implemented and how does PRU responds to that?

If it's implemented with a broad design, we'll move. I mean, it's absolutely incontrovertible. It doesn't [indiscernible] in English, yes. If it's implemented the right way, we'll be perfectly happy to operate in that framework and sell our products and continue. If it's operating in a way that for us doesn't make economic sense, we will not operate on that way. I really think we're winning the debate. I read all the Q&As of all the Qs. I think things have moved. I think that the French spreads have de-correlated from German spreads is helpful. And I think that people have thought about these issues in a very narrow way. I think that stress conditions are very hard to anticipate and markets often move in a way that one wouldn't have expected before. So under stress, suddenly [indiscernible] this doesn't make sense. It hasn't been growing. We're very happy to give you economic capital based on RBC if you want it. That's not difficult to do. What we can tell you is we're fine right now. I said RBC is above 40%. Sorry, it's a very [ph] issue for us because we've been at this for a long time. It's been at time difficult to say what we've been saying. You know where we've been held by events. That's one of the few ways I'm glad about the Eurozone crisis because it's concentrated domains of some of our peers, and that's good. So Mike, do you want to continue on MCEV and new business?

I think the issue in the U.S. -- I mean, pro-cyclical regimes get you the wrong thing at the wrong time, okay? If you look at the U.S. model on the equivalence issue, you have 40% of the capital in the U.S. industry destroyed at the peak of the trough, if you will, the crisis. You had all replaced 20, 22 months out. You had no U.S. defaults. So if you're sitting in a U.S. industry, meaning, they look at, say, this model works across cycles. So they don't think they're fixing anything. And so when you get into the dialogue on equivalency, you say, well, now you need a pro-cyclical model that would assume you could raise capital at the bottom. It doesn't sit well with the U.S. industry folks, and I would be in that camp.

I think things are moving certainly [indiscernible] -- the we've been told is consistent. We've been told that there will be U.S. equivalence debate under [ph] how, and most senior house levels, that's what we've been told. So that's, from our perspective, positive. David?

I hate to follow-up on this issue about capital because it's getting you hot under the collar, but to be -- honestly, to characterize Solvency II as market consistent is absurd. It's clearly not market consistent in the 2 areas where you might be challenged, which is U.K. annuities and the U.S. annuities. And you've got equivalence on one and you've got to match premium pretty well guaranteed on the other. So I think what Nick's asking and what we're asking is, can we have the economic capital ratio with U.S. equivalence? Because if we don't do it, it does make us feel a bit nervous about the fact that you are hiding something.

I really don't think that it is absurd to say that Solvency II is market consistent because we're matching premium up to March 21 we're being told would not happened. So that Solvency II was kind of market consistent. I accept that now we're putting countercyclical measures that would make it look different. But it is designed, in its original design, it was designed to be market consistent. So that's the Solvency II [indiscernible]. And I agree with you, but if you remove that...

I agree that things have moved along. I mean, we just want to know what the situation is. The other question I want...

In due course we will give you that information, but sorry, for the time being, our energy has been focused on getting the right answer on the design of the framework. And once that's done, we'll give you all the numbers. I'd be very happy to do so.

Two other questions I have. One is you gave us the amount of VAs which are in-the-money from the issued levels. I assume that's different. And more interesting is, how much is in-the-money from the current benefit base? And so I wonder whether we could have that. And then finally, could I ask on the U.S. fixed annuities? Can you give us an idea on the in-force and on the new business, what are the crediting rates, what are the current guarantee levels and what are your portfolio yield? I think you gave us portfolio yields.

Mike?

I'll do the second one first. You're roughly in the portfolio, 3 40, 3 50 on the crediting rate. So you're getting down -- and if you're trying to get to how close are the guarantees, which I've talked about before, we're getting near there. I mean, we're -- there's your 40 basis points, 30 basis points from the guarantee thresholds. So you're there. I think again, your -- the other component that's probably important to add to that is you're seeing normal persistencies. You're not seeing any change in withdrawals one way or the other. That helps. You're not seeing -- suddenly withdrawals turned off, you're not seeing withdrawals or surrenders increase. So the book is behaving as a positive [ph] indifferent to the crediting rates currently. We're not seeing anything -- as the rates come down, we're not seeing any change in behavior. On the -- for [indiscernible] on the benefit base versus the in-the-money, and this is -- we're assuming half year number.

What we're trying to get across there on the 17% which is really I'm thinking about the structural profitability of the contract. So M&E fees, which is the bulk of the fees, we're going to collect are basically about pricing assumptions at this point. So that's the takeaway there. Structurally, the way these things work since most of them have high watermarks, you're never going to be far from at-the-money. So virtually, everything is going to be more or less at the money type of guarantee. We don't have any deep out-of-the-money relative to benefit base. Does that answer your question?

[indiscernible] last year and at the end of the year [indiscernible]?

No, it was same number.

That was the same basis as with 17 now.

Yes. Just market's gotten better, we've written more of them.

And Andrew, on new business, the spreads -- the crediting rates in new fixed annuities were reduced by 25 basis points to around 1.5% if it's coming through as a fixed annuity. And if it's coming through the VA side of things, it's 1%.

Greg? Greig N. Paterson - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: Greig Paterson of KBW. I'll try and ask non-traditional questions. Moving to the balance sheet. The first one is, there's been a lot of press about new countries or potential new initiatives. I wonder if you just want to talk about region, Poland region, Nigeria, Brazil and Cambodia. What's going on there? What are you entering or what the plans are? The second question is agent persistency. I noted last year, you had a negative -- if you look at expense and persistence, you had a negative, I think, 20 million [ph]. You then strengthened the assumption by 120, and the run rate is now minus 180. So there seems to be, if you take expense and persistency and times it by 2, that's minus 80. So there seems to be a significant deterioration in your Asian and expense [indiscernible] those 2 items despite assumption changes. I'm just wondering what's going on there? And then a third question. I wonder if you can just give me [indiscernible] to provide the year-on-year growth in APE proactive agent by productivity in your agency ports?

New countries. Effectively, there's been a story in the media about Poland. If I take a step back from this, what we look at when we look to invest is really GDP, GDP growth, demography. We like younger population rather than older. Savings behavior, savings rate, is very important. And if you have a market-friendly environment where you can run a business, make a profit, repatriate it, remit those nice remittances we showed you, et cetera, et cetera basic components. If agreed, yes, clearly, Southeast Asia ranks very high. I've referred to the past, the average age in Indonesia, 28 years old, I've seen the curve as soon and GDP per capita, et cetera. But it is not the only place, area, in the world where there are markets that are potentially attractive to us. So Poland is, we believe, an attractive market. The demography is positive. It's by far the youngest country in Europe. It has good economic growth, very sound economic management, good savings behavior, very good savings rate, and it's a country where the form of distribution we like, the agency works. So it has all those characteristics. I'm always tempted to say unfortunately, it is in Europe and don't look like European country by most metrics. Fiscally, it's very responsible, a bit like the Asian countries. So in the end, you're confronted with something, do I want to create more value or do I want to stick to this notion that PRU can only do things in Asia. And I think on balance, we believe it's a good opportunity. We believe we will create value for the shareholders. So we want to go in with profit proposition and we want to build it from the ground up. So it's never going to be material. The network,…

Yes, I'm not sure I [indiscernible] the numbers there. But the experience that we reported in the first half was minus 18. Candidly, when you're talking about 13 countries, you start talking about very small numbers. It continues to be slightly outside the -- where we have moved the assumptions to -- on Malaysia withdrawals . It's still a very active program there, but it's normalizing. But it's still, as I indicated, at the prelims. It wasn't going to revert to near instantly. So we're seeing that come through. And I guess, from time to time, you'll see 1 or 2 areas. Japan, we're close to new business. Again, we're seeing a spike in access there as well. So on embedded, roughly, that is now, gosh, a very, very big number. It's more. You make a good point if you change assumptions and so on and so forth, but I would also point you to the same trend also on the mortality and the morbidity. We made positive assumption changes at the end of last year and some of significant size. And yet, you're seeing a higher mortality morbidity profit coming through in the first half of this year, notwithstanding the moving assumptions closer to the experience that we're seeing. So a number of big moving factors. We continue to monitor them and react to them and that's really the strategic plan. Greig N. Paterson - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: You're putting the appendix with the net flows, that gives you a sense of the persistency also?

Net flows is the cash side. It's the cash side of things. That information is there.

It's there.

Has always been there. I think we had a request last time to help break out some of the items in relation to India, which we agreed. They do distort the trends. They do distort the ins and the outs. So we've added a slide in the pack just to show x India, so you'll get a better understanding, that that's on the net flows. Greig N. Paterson - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: The outflows, does this expense annualized are running at minus 18 million in the first half? That's for one. The second one, if you look at the unit-linked flows in Asia, annualize it as a starting point, it's minus 13% out flows are in this. And I think, if I'm not -- it is minus 13% if you take this horrendous tons of [indiscernible] and divided by the starting balance in unit link. In your pricing assumptions you show on slides over the years, effectively assume that your products stay on the book for like 30 years and other surrender penalties and that sort of [indiscernible]. So I was just wondering, I mean, to me, the implication of the flows is that the duration of the books are 10 years and your modeling assumptions used to be 30 years so I'm just trying to...

[indiscernible] premiums and flows? The flows are net of expenses, commissions, et cetera, et cetera. So there's always going to be a significant difference between premiums and flows, right? So we can get into a detail. Whatever fundamental, that's a fundamental thing you're dealing with. You can't just go from premiums to flows. Of course, there will be net of all the cash you've actually spent at which you do spend upfront when you're growing and it is significant. I think that's a big part of this.

Yes, I'm happy to outline. But look, my overriding message is that we are net-net as I said in my presentation, net-net Asia on the experience was positive. Actually, it's the first time it's done that, albeit a few million, it's the first time we've done that since pre-crisis, and I think that's a positive development, particularly, when the size of the book and embedded value terms is much, much bigger than it was back in 2007.

Barry, do want to say a word. We don't forget you? Barry?

Well, Greig, you had also asked about productivity of agency, in terms of measuring APE per agent, is that right? Is that the question?

Yes, that was the question, then. Okay.

Yes. First of all, I would say that I think measuring productivity by looking at the APE per sale, per agent, it's kind of a blunt instrument because it can lead you to conclusions that aren't necessarily valid. For instance as Tidjane pointed out on one of the slides in this presentation, we've spent a lot of time and effort in Indonesia in the last year in expanding in the areas outside Jakarta such that half of our agents in Indonesia are now in more rural areas. We pretty much got what you could characterize as full geographic coverage in the country, which is quite a task when you consider thousands and thousands of islands, just the geographic logistics. But what the result of that would also be that those rural agents who are in less-economically developed areas outside of Jakarta will typically write a lower average premium. And it's not that it's worse business, it's just that the economic realities of Timor versus Bali or Jakarta are different, and so you would expect people to have lower average premiums. So you will get, if you look at it in real granular detail, it will look at spots within markets or markets where average premiums might be going down in other places where they're going up strongly. Overall, our agency productivity is up 12%, but it's lumpy and you really have to look at it with a little more precision and sit down. And I'm happy always to then have a conversation about that.

Can we have some slides back or is it not possible? Can we have the escalator slide with all the Asian countries? Because it's exactly what Barry said. We've had this conversation, Greig. You need to think -- when we add sales, you need to think about where they come from. And we are doing a number of things in our [indiscernible] that will drive the APE per active agent down structurally. If new growth is coming from Indonesia, which is poorer, I think, it's just -- and/or Vietnam or of a booming population in Malaysia or -- it's coming in here. So actually, it's good because it's profitable [indiscernible] but if you take a measure like APE per active agent, it's going to go like that. So when you take the Asia number. So that's why you have [indiscernible] by country by country. Greig N. Paterson - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: [indiscernible]

I mean, it's flat. I'm pretty sure it's flat. We can give you the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's flat.

I think he's thinking of the number of agents. Greig N. Paterson - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: [indiscernible]

Yes.

Andy Hughes, Exane BNP Paribas. The first one is on the Asia being on track in terms of growth. When you started a target, were you really expecting the kind of boom in bancassurance that you've seen over the last sort of in these set of sales we've seen here in the previous periods. Because I'm just wondering, if by market by market, the bancassurance bid is actually pulling up the other markets that were due to grow, and when or if the bancassurance sales normalize, and does that mean you're actually below target in terms of where you were before? And the second question was on the U.S. I've seen this stuff about the contingent deferred annuity working party, which I guess it doesn't affect you directly. But there was stuff in there which seems to affect it to do with the interaction as the VA and the AG reserves that you set and the use of voluntary [indiscernible], together with commentary about making sure people utilize benefits a lot more, which I thought it was a real concern. I just want to know what's going on with that. I mean, it's from February this year, so I'm not sure what the progress or what the regulatory pressure on utilization of benefits in the U.S. being how sensitive things would be.

Mike, do you want to take the second and I'll come back to ?

I think it's -- there's 2 elements that we're talking about. The more important one to us is the state by state, so what does New York and the state of Michigan think. And theirs is more similar to an S&P or Moody's type review, which is specific to contract years, clients or do our the assumptions align with the experience we've seen and the industry information they have from that point of view. We've seen no change. They were focused on that before, and they're focused on that in their reviews of us now. So I don't think there's material change there. I think there's numerous places in the industry where you get -- discussions about reserving. And it just has to do with some of the write-offs you've seen coming from competitors and some of the competitive behavior from some of the firms. But it's not a -- we don't see that as a Jackson issue. We think we're well reserved with our products. And as we mentioned, we've just reviewed our experiences and assumptions and we're quite pleased with them. We've got every rating agency and then the regulators. So I'm pretty comfortable with that.

[Question Inaudible]?

Yes, there is -- that's not -- I appreciate the point. It's a good one. Higher communication, do you get -- it's a sleeping dogs lie argument. Do you get higher or lower returns if the clients are more and more informed? Do you get higher or lower surrender charges if they're more and more informed. There's pretty robust rules now on the communication with shareholders. I'd say the bigger issue for the industry on that direction right now is some of the firms trying to go back and buy back their books or create a lower U.S. exposure by trying to convince clients to transfer -- to sell them back of policy at some premium or exchange. There's a lot of discussion. But that's probably the most noise in that space. Now it's how would you communicate that fairly accurately? It has to be a case-by-case review with the broker-dealers, when do you include them, that sort of thing. And there's a lot of dialogue there. But I haven't heard much candidly on the other topic. That's the -- the buybacks have been sort of the current noise in that space.

But remember, we price in reserve for [indiscernible] behavior. So at the end of the day, if you have that discipline, whatever happens from a regulatory respective or otherwise, you should -- you are in a much lower position.

And to be clear, the only reason we're a party of any buybacks is because we have broker-dealers that sold product. It's not that we're -- as an insurer interested in that sort of action to be very clear.

On the first question, I think we should be clear. The position we always want to be in this world, all products we write create them for all the channels. With bancassurance, this is perfectly fine. The return on capital is comfortably above the cost of capital and in our book, that creates value for our shareholder. So frankly, we're not too stressed about where the group comes from. What we've committed to you is we've taken the online numbers and we've told you multiply them by 2 by 2013. Now the notion that the 409 million of IFRS profit, life IFRS profit don't come from the right source, therefore we missed the target. Baffles me. I think we grew in Asia. We grew profitably. We're hitting the numbers. Nobody knows the future. This is exactly why I refuse to give you targets by channel or by country. When we announced the targets, there's a little get more granularity. And we said no, because we run a large business. We are very confident we can hit those numbers, not knowing what the future macroeconomic conditions will be because we have enough levers that we can pull at different times. So for me, I am not bothered, but in this period, we delivered a lot of [indiscernible] growth. That's one, and two, my fundamental belief the charts were used too much so in the end we have to take them out. But I have this chart which shows you asset ownership in the -- retail financial market by GDP per capita, okay? That is the justification for doing bancassurance. So what you see is that when you cross something like -- depends on the region. Let's say between $3,000 and $6,000 per capita, all that money that is in deposit starts…

Let's go Ashik and then Ed. Ashik Musaddi - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Ashik Musaddi from JPMorgan. Couple of questions on U.S. In 2011, there was a $900 million of warrant reserving in the VAs, $900 million. So can I get some more color on what that was and where does that sit as of first half? Secondly, can you give some color on the what the ROE on the new business VAs that you're writing right now and how does that compare with the back book? Basically, I'm just trying to compare what MetLife has said that their ROE is in the range of 13% to -- 13% or something on the new business VAs after repricing announced? I'm just trying to compare that.

Okay, Michael?

So just to explain the bonds and reserves in [indiscernible] the RBC works in the U.S., you've got -- there is a -- it's more of a factor-based approach typically at a BBB level type of confidence interval. If you think about the particular credit, that's where credit is, that's where RBC kind of grew in the U.S. And so at that level, you're going to assume in U.S. a well-capitalized insurance company is going to have, call it 400% RBC, which is going to be basically shifting from that BBB lower threshold up to a more AA type of look, right? With AG 43 and C3 Phase II, that's more of what you might consider European solvency regime where it's a CTE, you already in that AA type of framework. And so...

Because [indiscernible] look necessarily accrual guidance, 43 is basically the 30% worse scenarios and C3 Phases are 10%. Is that correct?

Right. Yes, it's 30%, yes. It's 70 CTE for reserving. It's 90 CTE for capital. Thank you. And the interplay there is that you can get a lot of volatility in that interaction between those 2 because you're not calculating in the exact same basis. So we and others will use voluntary reserves to effect -- because what you're going to set is the reserve level is what it is and then C3 Phase II capital component goes into the denominator, but that's very levered number by its nature. And so you only carry reserve -- or you only carry capital in excess of the reserve. So what we do and what others do is use the voluntary reserves effectively to set reserves equal to capital. So you don't get the leverage effect to have the RBC moving all over the place from period to period. So that particular part that you saw at year end, the $900 million, is now reduced to about $500 million. But it's something that's it's really part and parcel the same calculation. The only thing that's really moving around. In fact, you can think of the way we set reserves is at the C3 Phase II, that 90 CTE level, and the reserve, the AG 43, 70 CTE level kind of gets to be a by-product, okay?

, And then as we have not given a by vintage ROE targets out or released it out, but generally, we have hit our -- what we said is above 20. And the -- I think from the slide we posted on embedded value, you can see that the last few years have been unusually profitable. That number, if you took that slide back another 10 years or smaller [indiscernible] more in the 40s, okay? So it's -- post crisis, it's gotten more profitable would be a good way to look at it.

The company starts have very different starting point.

Yes, we have a very different expense structures and key on the VAs is different guarantees.

Some have been starting from low point trying to drive it up for us. We're starting from a very high point.

Ed Housen [ph] at Sanford Bernstein. Would you accept the premise that the group is trading at a discount to the sum of its parts? And if so, could you set out strategic options you've considered to unlock that value?

But I say no. Yes. No, we've considered, frankly, every option. We just had a Board Strategic Meeting in June and telling one rule, [indiscernible] We look at absolutely every single recombination, reconfiguration of the group. And I can say from selling Asia to selling the U.S. to selling the U.K., selling inventory, selling the whole group, everything. And the way it works is you look at that, and then you look at what's left. And I think I've been open about that. The real issue for our group for a long time has been IFRS, so we talked about it so much. If you're going to be able to pay a dividend and service some debt, you need a good IFRS cover. And the history of the group this group is that it's from IFRS poor. It came from a place where it was making 700 million, 800 million a year of IFRS, of which 500 million, 600 million came from the U.K. and the reason why we've been on this [indiscernible] to build alternative sources of IFRS and every [indiscernible] inside my head was kind of a 1 billion of IFRS out of Asia, [indiscernible] and when I was saying that we were at 170. So if we will forget, that's 3, 4 years ago, so 1 billion seems really -- now we're doing 400 million in half year on the way there. Once you get to 1 billion, then you can play with reconfiguring for group and have something viable afterwards. First discussion, if you take out the U.K., when you don't have enough IFRS, take out the U.K., it's a disaster, okay? Because you're going to breach that covenants. You get some proceeds which are going to go back to pay debt. And once you have…

James Pearce, UBS. I want to ask about Elite Access. Specifically where you're getting capacity from given the publicity recently about hedge funds shutting down, giving money back and so forth? And also in the scheme of things, I think in the moment about 5% of your account assets have no lifetime benefits on the. Have you got target in access intended to get that percentage of no guarantee diverses up to any particular level.

If you compare apples and oranges for a second, James, if you look over the last 3 years, because that's the number we just ran, and you throw a pear [ph] in it, which is the disconnect, which is our initiatives to keep our the percentage of sales going to with living benefit guarantees down. You have seen 20%, 25% of the sales go into product that have effectively no withdrawal benefit, protect guaranty. Elite Access is clearly targeted there. It's -- obviously very pleased with the launch. The capacity is an interesting question. We had a lot more managers apply to be in the product than we felt we could launch with. The enhancements we're making to the product initially which are ongoing now, and their filings, I can't get too specific. We'd go to adding more options to the sub advisor lineup types of options. And it's -- what we're finding is kind of what we hoped -- the consumer in the retail advisor don't see, they're very concerned about diversifying away from how highly correlated assets to equities. They feel like they've got a ton of money in U.S. debt. I'm sure you guys all see pieces on the percentage of funds going into the total return bond funds in the States and they're looking for an alternative there. You need -- I think it's an excellent demonstration of our distribution franchise. It's a hard product to wholesale. It's very complicated, very sophisticated. Service of those types of funds is unique. And I think there's an extension of, for all the years we talked about not having a brand but a business reputation, advisors clearly are comfortable with us bringing something that sophisticated, which I'm obviously very pleased with. I think that's -- we trained our wholesalers for over a year before we launched the product on this and our service people as well. And what we're hearing so far is the firms are extremely hungry for the training we're bringing. There's capacity issues there. There's only so much of it you can do. But its the launch is going very well and the reception from the types of broker-dealers we do business with them hearing directly is very good. Yes, this is one product. It's not intended to be the new Jackson. or -- we're not going -- we are -- it's intended to be another business line that we can run concurrently with everything else we're doing. But I think for the consumer and the advisor, there's nobody in the U.S. you think of as the leader in alt space who has defined complex that's -- there isn't a name there. And so I think we're bringing value to advisor, and I think it's a great product for their consumer. And that seems to be the reception so far. It's -- the sales cycle is a little longer to get people comfortable with it but it's been good.

I think probably because we talked about it first in the quarterly call, we probably haven't said enough about it, but reason it's called Elite Access, you correct me, Mike, because it gives access to alternative asset classes that are very hard to access for the basic investor. And also the reason why it's without guarantees that it eliminates the usual basis so you don't have to hedge it. So what we've put to date, that is exactly the things that would create trouble if you wish in your portfolio, very hard to hedge. So it makes perfect sense to offer that without the living benefits. It's a win-win. It's risk reducing for us and it gives the customers access to improve their own [indiscernible]. So it's been -- it's very hard to predict the volume ...

It is. Our wholesale group isn't on board yet. We have -- they keep -- their process are very careful now in adding new products. And so we're -- various firms in various stages. No one's ever had a variable annuity without any guarantees before to approve. So more than a few firms have told me, you've given me work I -- we haven't gone down this path before and somewhere a little less appreciative of that than others candidly, but in almost every firm that goes to their Alt area, goes to their VA, goes to their risk committees to get approved. It's very difficult now even with good relationships with the home offices to launch a product quickly in the U.S. and I think that's a healthy element of the business just maturing. I think it's good that firms holistically look at products they add. But the response to it has been good. We're obviously real pleased. And as you saw, the year-over-year growth in the VAs come from it. And that's -- it's an early launch we are I would argue weeks and couple of months in a reasonable scale with it.

The last thing I would say about that is it's going to be additive.

Yes.

It's not a cannibalization of our volume. It is addressing the different buckets of demand, people wanting [indiscernible] not our usual clientele. Okay, shall we take one last question, if there is one? No? I think the impact of the time we chose for this meeting during the Olympics on a Friday has worked. Thank you very much for your patience, and I wish those of you going on holiday -- a good and happy holiday. See you at the next -- at our the next results. Yes, sorry, we have not cancelled the investor conference. It's still happening in New York in November. I was just too hungry, so I'm trying to skip this. it's -- No, seriously, it's going to be a good opportunity to talk about Jackson. It's a third one we've done in London wherever it was 2 years ago. We did Asia, it was [ph], a number of you were there last year. Now we're going to the U.S. and we'll have a really good big spotlight on Jackson, and you'll get to us again as many questions as you feel like. So thank you and see many of you in New York in November. Thank you.