So good morning, everybody, and welcome, and thank you for coming to Reed Elsevier's 2012 Results Presentation and for those of you who are on our webcast, thank you for listening in. I hope you will agree with me that this set of results is another incremental improvement with a strong increase in earnings per share at both parent companies and positive momentum continuing to build across the business. Underlying sales growth of 4%, which 3% without the cycling, and profit growth of 6% were underpinned by positive growth of sales and profits in each of our 5 business areas. This in turn is the result, among other things, of digital and face-to-face revenue growth at this point far offsetting the continuing decline of the now only 20% of the business that is in print format. Erik, Duncan and the team are continuing to streamline the business. Increased focus on capital allocation, combined with improved profitability is reflected in the return on capital increasing by 0.7 percentage points in the year to a much more satisfactory, almost 12%. The approximate proceeds from disposals have been used to buy back shares both in 2012 and earlier this year, and as announced today, this will continue through 2013. Also announced today is our intention to appoint Dr. Wolfhart Hauser, the Chief Executive of Intertek plc to our board in April. This appointment, following that of Duncan Palmer and Linda Sanford, will complete this phase of our board's evolution. Together with the many management changes that Erik has made over the past 2 or 3 years, I believe Reed Elsevier is now well staffed at the board and senior executive level to continue to build on its positive momentum going forward. The declaration of a full year dividend increase of 7% for both plc and NV is a further statement of the board's confidence in the ability of the business to continue to develop forward into the future. I would now like to introduce Duncan Palmer, who some of you will have already met, and who will be presenting the results. As you know, he joined us in August, became CFO in November and has settled in really well and already proved himself to be a critical member of the executive. He will now take you through the results, then Erik will discuss the businesses and outlook more generally. Duncan?

Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, everybody. I'm very pleased to have joined Reed Elsevier, and I'm proud to be presenting our 2012 results with Erik. I look forward to getting to know all of you over the coming months. I'd like to start this morning with the financial highlights for 2012. Our primary measures of revenue and operating profit growth are on an underlying basis, that is excluding the effects of currency movements and acquisitions and disposals which took place in 2011 and 2012. In 2012, we grew underlying revenues by 4%. In our Exhibitions business, we have several shows that take place every other year with more shows taking place in even years than odd years. This cycling impact was, therefore, positive in 2012. Excluding cycling impact, underlying revenue growth was 3%. Underlying adjusted operating profit grew 6%. Adjusted earnings per share growth was 8% in constant currency terms, with a sterling-denominated plc adjusted EPS up 7% and the euro-denominated NV adjusted EPS up 14%, reflecting a weaker euro in 2012. The proposed full year dividends for both the plc and NV shares represent a 7% increase over 2011. Return on invested capital was up by 0.7 percentage points in 2012. Reed Elsevier ended 2012 in a strong financial position. Net debt was GBP 3.1 billion, our primary leverage ratio as measured by net debt to EBITDA after adjusting for the net pensions deficit and capitalizing leases was 2.2x compared to 2.3x in 2011, well within the parameters of our BBB+, Baa1 credit ratings and offering us substantial financial flexibility. On an unadjusted basis, net debt to EBITDA was 1.7x compared to 1.8x in 2011. In 2012, we converted 94% of adjusted operating profit into cash. Following the announcement at midyear of our intention to apply the gross…

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming and for taking the time to be here today. As you've seen this morning, 2012 was another year of improving financial performance and continuing transformation of our asset base and its earnings quality, primarily through organic development, but also through portfolio reshaping towards more predictable revenues, higher underlying revenue growth and improving returns. In terms of operating performance, our underlying revenue growth reached 4% on an underlying as-reported basis. And excluding the effects of biennial exhibition cycling, like-for-like underlying revenue growth was 3%. Underlying operating profit growth reached 6%, and earnings per share growth at constant currencies reached 8%. And despite the continued organic investments in our business and a completion of a few acquisitions, our return on invested capital increased by another 70 basis points to 11.9%. And we reduced our net debt to EBITDA ratio further to 2.2x on a pension and lease adjusted basis, a leverage range that we're very comfortable with. All 5 major business areas delivered underlying revenue growth for the full year and all 5 delivered underlying profit growth, as well as margin progression for the full year. Let's take a brief look at each one of them. Elsevier grew 2%, with good volume growth across science and medical research. We achieved double-digit growth in article submissions and usage, with particularly strong growth in emerging markets. So-called author pays or author's funder pays article volumes also increased during the year, albeit from a small base. A sponsored article option is now available in 1,500 of our journals, and we operate about 30 standalone journals under this payment model. We saw strong revenue growth in databases and tools and electronic revenues across all segments. But declines continued in print books and pharma promotion revenues. For 2013, the customer…

I think we'll start right here in the front, yes. Sorry.

It's Sami of Exane BNP Paribas. Three questions, if I may again today. The first one is, could you comment on the cost benefits and cost savings one could expect from the closer integration of RBI and the Risk Solutions division, please? Secondly, could you comment on the outlook for the L&P profit margin development into 2013 in the context probably of rising D&A but also cost savings? Shall we expect L&P operating profit margins to continue to grow in 2013? And lastly, if I'm not mistaken, the Risk Solutions division has recently entered the healthcare industry or expanded in the healthcare industry, can you comment on the opportunity you see in that market and whether in, say, 5 years or more, it could increase to a point where it matches the Insurance division in terms of revenues?

Okay. Let me make sure -- I'll take them one at a time here. You said first one that you're talking about us bringing RBI and Risk Solutions more closely together. We are -- and are there any major costing? There are no material cost reasons for us to do this. This is driven by the long-term growth strategy where we want to leverage the assets, resources and skills we have in Risk Solutions, in data, analytics and technology and leading technology, and we want to combine that with a broader geographic footprint of RBI, and it's industry-specific databases. So we can leverage those across to drive growth over time from medium- to long-term perspective. This is not a cost consolidation or restructuring-driven merger. I don't want to expect any, any one-off exceptional restructuring costs in any way. And I would not think that there are any material cost differences. It's a growth-driven strategy. The second question -- I want to make sure I really understood what you meant, I think you asked about what should we expect for LexisNexis Legal & Professional cost and margin progression for 2013?

Especially the margin on progression.

Yes, yes. I mean, clearly, you saw that this year we saw a slight margin progression due to the fact that we managed to rework our processes and drive efficiencies that just slightly more than offset the increase in cost related to product development and others, so the cost growth was just marginally below revenue growth. And with the market environment we're in, which is a very subdued market and low growth, not just for us but for our customers and other service providers, it is very difficult to move the margins up in any material way. So I would say that we will continue to work hard to keep our cost growth on sort of beneath our revenue growth, but I would -- the upside for margin growth is very limited in the near term. Second -- sorry, third question, yes, our Risk Solutions business have done, as I said I think when I talked about Risk Solutions, they have started to leverage some of what they're doing into adjacent risk market segments. One of those is, when you go into healthcare, health insurance, health benefits, and we're primarily entering in that direction looking at fraud detection and waste and abuse solution similar to the way we have taken our skill set and our databases to go into state and local fraud waste and abuse solutions when it comes to taxes, when it comes to Social Security benefits and other things, right? So this is a natural small step-by-step expansion of our Risk Solutions assets into adjacent risk markets. And I expect that will continue not just in healthcare, but in others. But it is not a signal or a major step or a major transition of what they are. It's a leverage of the skill set they have into adjacent markets, which I expect we will continue for many, many years to come.

It's Ian Whittaker from Liberum. Three questions and some of them follow-on from what Sami asked. First of all, you did in all divisions in '12, operating margin growth and underlying revenue growth. Would you expect the same result in '13 across all divisions? The other 2 questions are more sort of, I guess, the legal risk focus. The second one is, just on the integration of risk and RBI, so you talked about the revenue opportunities. One of the things you talked about in the past is that risk in LexisNexis shared a lot of the infrastructure. Will the closer integration that you've got between RBI and risk lessen some of that overlapping on the infrastructure? And then the third thing is just interested in your views on the legal market in general. Some of the commentary that I've heard back suggest that in the U.S. and U.K., there was a growing view that the legal industry is in structural decline. There's too many lawyers. There is essentially the -- particularly at the smaller and medium part of the legal market that, that is due to go sort of rapid change over the next couple of years. Obviously, that would impact sort of your Legal & Professional business. So I'm just wondering sort of how you think about things and you evolve your legal market moving forward?

Okay, let's see here. first question, do we expect and specifically in 2013 to see revenue, profit and margin growth in every business? I would say you cannot expect that every business every year will grow all 3. We are doing specific growth initiatives at different times. And what's important to us is the medium-term trajectory in every one of them. And in any 1 year, in any 1 business segment, we might actually grow more or less or invest more or invest less. But -- so I wouldn't draw that conclusion for every year and every business all the time, no. Second question, Risk and RBI, you say the fact that we are bringing those more closer together, doesn't mean that we lessen link with others? As a matter of fact, it's no, we're actually using the Risk Solutions technology, the advanced technology in Risk Solutions are actually integrated more deeply now in Legal & Professional than it was 1 year ago and will be more deeply integrated a year from now that it is today. I would expect that you will see continued deeper integration across all of the businesses sharing more technology also a year from now than you do today because we're doing more today than we did a year ago across the other businesses. So I think it's a continued gradual step. And which market is currently working with which other market facing unit the most, is actually not the driver of how we leverage infrastructure or technology. Legal industry, I think you're actually point -- accurately pointing out that in several countries, the legal services industry itself is going through structural change. But near-term structural change in some countries, depending on the dynamics in that countries, did not mean, in my opinion, that the legal industry is going to be in permanent decline, which is the extrapolation I would not do. I think in the long run, the drivers for the legal services industry relate to increasing regulation and legislation also increasing volume and litigation, in particular, in the U.S. that has been a permanent trend for very a long time, as well as in relation to economic activity business transaction. And clearly we're right now -- the first one is not cyclical, maybe even countercyclical. The second one is a little bit cyclical and the third one is definitely cyclical. And we're going through a slow period in some economic -- in the economic environment in some countries. But I do not think it's an industry that is in permanent decline, if that's your question. Okay? Let's go back this way.

It's Patty [ph] from Goldman Sachs. I've got one question really and that's on the Medical division, underlying growth flat again. Can you give us an idea how much of it is print and in your strategic review of businesses to be disposed, did any of those businesses fit into that category?

Yes, first, your question how much of that is print, you said, in what we used to call the Health Sciences part, the part of Elsevier, roughly half is still in print, and that is print books and print pharma promotion, really, that are the ones that are in decline. We also have some print left in medical research, but that's going through an organized transition just like we've seen before. So that's the reason that, that it nets out to essentially flat. And clearly, what we're going through in all businesses and the health segments are not exempt from that is looking at every small asset, asset-by-asset, to see if this is an asset we can transform into the kind of business we want to be in, or if not, is this an asset that we should get rid of. So they're not exempt from that, but at this point, we don't have any major sort of asset block in there that we're looking at and saying, "This one is different." But we're working through all the assets inside that business just the way we work through all the others.

And can it return to growth in '13?

It's always very hard to point out in short term because you have that impact of print format declines in books, which is across all markets, and they have a significant number of print books. Some of those are related to sort of reference in education, which is going through in the U.S. and a decline that's not just format migration, but also state funding as well as private, private school funding. And then you have the pharma promotion declines, which is also more structural. So it's very hard to say what will happen in any 1 year, so I can't tell you about 2013 specifically.

Erik, it's Patrick Wellington of Morgan Stanley. Also, just one question. You gave a very good example in the sale of Totaljobs and your recruitment services that, that should be taken as an indicator that you weren't after a global position in those markets. Now you sold LexisNexis Germany about 18 months ago, so should we interpret from that, that you don't aspire to be a global leader in the legal markets, long term?

Well, as a short answer, the answer is no. You should not infer that. All of our businesses have a global component to them. That's the businesses you want to be in, meaning they leverage global platforms and global content or global skill sets in some way. But also many of them have a local component where in order to be successful in one country, one specific country and a specific business, you actually need to have a position or be able to build the position that puts you in a strong position that you can create value from over time. And if you can't figure out how to maneuver that in the short term, you might as well step away and work on it in a long run in a different way at some other point in time. So this, you would see -- you should see the LexisNexis Germany exit as more of a tactical one country position issue, not as a long-term strategic question about the global business. Steven Craig Thomas Liechti - Investec Securities (UK), Research Division: Steve Liechti from Investec. Can you just give me your view in terms of the recent news flow from the U.S. in terms of open access and public funding there? And equally, if we did go to the sort of situation for 1 year delay or embargo, can you give us any sort of reference points in terms of how much of the business is dependent on new product as opposed to catalog product? So just give us some sort of feel of the potential effect of that.

Well, you can look at it this way. Last week, last week, the White House OSTP, as they call the Office of Science and Technology Policy, issued a memorandum, a policy memorandum on access to research. And our view of that one is that it's very balanced. It recognizes the value that the publishing industry brings to the table explicitly and it recommends a collaborative approach, private-public partnerships. And as a result, the publishing industry, especially in a public statement last week from the Association of American Publishers, welcomed the findings and the suggestions. It may be important to note that if you look at all the research that's funded by the federal agencies that this memo covers, of all those, the largest is the NIH, representing more than half of the research that's covered in this whole thing. And you may know that Elsevier has been working with the NIH in a collaborative approach to post approved manuscripts on repositories at 12 months after publication, and we've been doing this systematically since 2005 with the NIH, predating any government mandate to do so. So that gives you an indication of the scale and what we have already done that follows this kind of policy literally now for approaching 8 years. So we think this is a reasonable and balanced approach. Steven Craig Thomas Liechti - Investec Securities (UK), Research Division: And the fact that your medical like-for-like revenues have been below the science has nothing to do with that?

No, it has nothing to do with that actually. The Medical Research business has metrics that grossed -- almost identical to the research in other disciplines. That when you refer to the old sort of health science definition, the declining pieces of that are print books and print pharma promotion that are completely unrelated to the research segment in terms of revenue growth. It is not unrelated -- our knowledge base or skill set. But it's unrelated in terms of growth rates. Yes, yes. So let's keep going back this way, please.

It's Mark Braley at Deutsche. Two questions. First one, just to come back to Sami's question around Lexis' margins, you still have roughly a perspective 5 percentage point drag from the gap between CapEx and depreciation in that division. If I look out, say, 3 or 5 years, can we think about the margin in Lexis being up from where we currently are in light of that depreciation issue that you have to get through? And the second question is just a clarification. This Risk-RBI corporation, there's no intention to start reporting that as one single line. Obviously, the risk margin is now extremely high, particularly post taking screening out, so I just want to clarify we're not collapsing the 2 divisions from a reporting perspective?

Okay, the first one here is -- the first one, LexisNexis margins, you're specifically looking at the CapEx depreciation issue. Clearly, we are now going through a bit of a hump in terms of CapEx, and you can see it coming down a little bit this year, right? So -- but we said, will stay at similar levels. But you would expect over a period of time that as CapEx comes down a little bit in a few years, and you said sort of 5 years after, I can't remember what you said. Is that what you said?

3 to 5.

3 to 5, yes. But if you look at it sort of several years out, right. Then clearly that CapEx will come in line with -- or depreciation will come in line with CapEx on average, right, and that gap will shrink. But the reason we're doing all these things is, one, to get renew our products to our customers, but also to completely rebuild our infrastructure and our processes. And that means that as we're doing this and the depreciation comes in, you're actually going to operate with different processes and ultimately lower operating costs in those processes. So if you take the long-term approach, yes, we expect CapEx to, in several years, be slightly lower. Yes, we expect depreciation to be slightly higher, but the depreciation is going to be depreciating in new infrastructure as more efficient than the current. So by itself, this should not have a material effect. The second question was reporting. We have no intent right now to collapse, to collapse the reporting today. The way we look at reporting is the following: that when we look at how to move our market-facing units, how to put them together or pull them apart, which we've done, right, we do that because of how we believe our management will focus best on serving our customers and ultimately drive innovation and revenue growth in our markets. That's what we're focused on for organization. If that leads us to reorganize or combine or recombine some units and that becomes how we operate and how we then create -- over time, we may then have to rely on the reporting to the way our business is actually run, but we start with customer market-facing priorities, then we line management around it. And if we then have done that, we would align reporting to suit that. But at this point, we don't have those plans out or any such plans. If we at some point collapse something or put something together, regroup there, we would first start there and then we try to be as helpful as we can with the reporting. I'm not sure what that would look like or when we would do something. Okay? Let's come around this way. Let's start in the front here, yes.

It's Andrea Beneventi from Cheuvreux. Three questions, if I may, also from my side. All 3 on legal. The first one is on the ongoing projects from the U.S. Government to lower the bar eligibility requirements. Is this, say, debate well advanced? Have you seen any significant change and would you see it as a positive? The second question is, I ask it every time, what's the share of customers of LexisNexis that have moved or using some features of Lexis Advance, please? And the third one, again, on the margins of the Legal & Professional business, obviously margins are going up. Is it the case for both the U.S. business and the non-U.S. business, or are we seeing different trends there?

Okay. The first one, I'm not sure that I can comment on in any way. I don't think I know enough to have an informed view, whether that would impact us in any way, so I think I'm going to avoid answering that one. The second question, the share of our customers in the U.S. who have some usage, some activation and usage of Lexis Advance, it's now up to about 45%. And the third question, you said the impact any difference between the U.S. versus international margins. This is because of the way we now operate this business, the way we're driving that new global platform and the infrastructure rollout, the distinction is actually starting to become meaningless because, as you might have heard in our seminars, essentially 80% of the infrastructure and the functionality that we're building out is basically global, right. And then content sets and some specialty tools are local. So therefore, we don't really look at it as a distinction between the 2 on the trends. It's the same trends. Let's keep going backwards here. Back there. You want to go behind him? Alexander Christian DeGroote - Panmure Gordon & Co. plc, Research Division: It's Alexander DeGroote at Panmure. Just in terms of the outlook and also the dividend that you've announced today, you say that you're growing the dividend at 7%, which reflect confidence in the outlook, but actually the divi [ph] is growing in line with earnings or much lower in terms of the earning NV. So I just wondered what sort of statement of confidence that is?

Well, we think that we have stated in the past that we have a general policy of roughly growing the dividend in line with earnings per share growth at constant currencies. And if you look at the earnings per share growth we had last year and dividend growth, earnings per share growth at this year in constant currencies, we believe that this level of growth rate is, something that indicates we're confident, and we will continue to grow. We think that is a balanced policy and you look at our dividend payout ratios, they seem pretty balanced. I would like to ask Duncan actually who's sort of come in to look at this and say if there's something that you'd like to add to that.

Yes, I mean, I think generally speaking, our policy is pretty clear, and we've certainly adopted that policy for quite a long time now about payout ratios, we say also are going to be about 50% and that generally this year, I think, is very, very consistent with that. Sometimes the currencies move around a little bit so it's kind of individual years can be a little different. But fundamentally, I think our policy stays intact and this year is very consistent with our policy. Alexander Christian DeGroote - Panmure Gordon & Co. plc, Research Division: Is the buyback a sort of -- does this remain offset to the dilution or is that also sort of implicitly also a call on slightly bigger cash distribution to shareholders in recognition of that, regardless of the main dividend payout?

Well, I will let the judgment on what kind of dividend it is be yours, but -- the way we see on the buybacks, the way we see that is the following: that we have a strong balance sheet, we have strong cash flow and we have our acquisition spend comfortably covered by free cash flow after dividends. Therefore, we'll continue to use the gross proceeds from disposals that we expect to buy back shares. And you can say that, that by itself that we're taking a gross proceeds that, that sort of is a sign of confidence in our cash generation, and is sort of the fact that we are pleased with the level of leverage we have in the cash generation [ph]. So it is a sign of confidence, and it is a sign of how we view our cash flow and balance sheet situation. But it is linked to the disposals, the estimated expected disposals and the cash flow from them.

It's Matthew Walker from Nomura. Two questions, please. One on risk and one on science. The first thing is on risk on international, you mentioned you're pushing in into international. It's been done in a relatively small way. Could you say what is the opportunity for risk internationally? If you look at business like Xperia and they've got massive position in international for sort of database-style businesses. Second question is on science and going back to the U.S. You mentioned the White House initiative. Just wondering what you thought of the faster legislation which has been introduced into Congress, and whether you think that's going to be passed with a 6-month embargo? And also what you have to say about the push towards not just publishing the article, but also providing the underlying data or in digital data sets, so people can get better value from the work that's being done by the scientists, if that's going to make any difference to the business.

Yes, first, risk international, as I've said before, we have several different initiatives going on around the world that are early-stage, some are investigation, some are pilots, some are sort of early-stage, early-stage trials. In the near term, they're going well. We have -- we talked last year about the fact that we have launched things in the U.K., we have additional product sets and feature sets that are being rolled out to specific customers this year. So we are enthusiastic about those in the sort of the small things we're doing now. In the near term, the impact of this on our revenue growth and risk is immaterial, right? In the near term, you'll see no sign of this in our revenue growth this year or next year or anything like that. But we believe that this is the kind of thing that if you sit here in 10 or 15 years, you're going to say, we're really happy we started on that path and that you'll see material future value-creation from the international expansion of our risk business. We think the long-term opportunity is very large, it's very significant, but what we're dealing with here for us is a much more sophisticated data analytics and technology setup than we had in that sort of -- what you were referring to a sort of the consumer credit, the basic consumer credit information businesses. All right. So you can see those existing in parallel in the U.S., which is the most mature market, but one grew first and matured and then the other one has sort of become a more sophisticated, much larger data sets. That's adjacent and on top. We believe that you could see similar types of development, but that they're not going to be quick. They're very…

It's Nick Dempsey from Barclays. Two questions left please. First of all on exhibitions, I guess, I was slightly surprised that at this stage of the year, you are confident enough to talk about growth, albeit small in European businesses, especially considering you got a big chunk of France in there. I was wondering what gives you the confidence at this point to say that? And second question, just going back to uses of cash. Should we think about the sort of proportionate level of bolt-on acquisitions that you did in 2012 is sensible for '13? And bearing in mind that you're open to grow as well, that's what I mean by proportional. And what is the environment like out there in terms of prices for bolt-ons?

Okay. Let me start with the first one here. You said exhibitions, you said Europe, right. The fact that we see at this point what we're seeing in Europe is limited growth, right. It has been a slowdown. If you look at compare to where we were 1 year ago, some countries in Europe were already slowing. But if you say 1 year ago, you mentioned specifically France, is in a macroeconomic environment, France is slower today or, however, you want to call it, than it was 12 months ago in most indicators, and that clearly will have an impact on our business there, and that's a material part of our European business. But if you look at what's happening today, today, we are seeing limited growth across Europe. I'm not using this as an economic forecast for our industry or as a macroeconomic forecast on what will happen in the rest of the year, but at this point that is what we are seeing. We are seeing today limited growth in Europe as a whole. Second thing you said -- let me make sure I understood what exactly you said. Bolt-on acquisitions, similar amounts, you said first? Is that...

Similar amounts or at least proportionately similar...

Yes, the way we think of our acquisitions, or smaller acquisitions, or whatever it is that we are likely to continue to do most of them in the 10s of millions of pounds, right, that's likely to happen. And once in a while, as you've seen over the last few years, we will find an asset that can be in 100s of millions of pounds, right. In the last 4 years, we had one of those. That could happen again, but there's no specific plan or budget or schedule for acquisitions for the year. We think that we can continue to pursue the strategy we have for acquisitions in the next year or 2, and we can comfortably cover that from our operating cash flow and from our balance sheet, the kind of strategy that we're pursuing. And you said anything about prices. It's very hard to judge on an overall basis, because it's very industry-specific, asset-specific and location-specific. And I'm not sure I can discern any trend that I could average or broaden up. Okay, do you want to go up there, just in front?

It's Giasone Salati from Espirito. Just to close on acquisitions and disposals, is it about 1x EV [ph] sales the average disposal multiple you're getting, and that compares quite poorly with 3x the stock is trading on. Do you have a number of other businesses or how do you look at disposals going forward? That's clearly improving, having a beneficial impact on organic revenue growth and margins, but it's up for grab, whether that's value accretion at this -- in this current environment. Secondly, maybe one for Duncan, looking at cash conversion and maybe margins, what is the kind of headwind on one and a tailwind on the other one we should factor in from the flow of CapEx and depreciation over the next year or 2 or 3 years, please?

Okay. I'll let Duncan take the second, but I'll start with the first here. I'm not sure exactly where you get your math from, to be honest. When you say it's 1x, it's not exactly what I think the numbers are. I think you might be taking the average over the last -- or total over the last 3 years by combining with what we're saying we're going to do and mixing them a little bit.

The 600 million disposals over the last 3 years in revenues with what we have seen in the cash flow coming in as proceeds from disposals. I'm sure it's a rough number, you probably have much better one.

Yes, I think it's slightly different, but it doesn't matter. Your question is what is the multiple if I take it -- what is the multiple of the disposal revenue and what is our acquisition. We have disposed of assets where you have gotten -- where you have a small shrinking, local print advertising asset with 0 margins, and we sell those for significantly less than 1x revenues. We have also sold assets that are growing well into double digits, well into double digits, with very high inherent margins and very good market position where we sell for multiples of the revenue that when we're selling them. And we have a mixture of those. Clearly, we have exited more of the businesses that have the sort of the -- what we consider the local print, advertising base businesses that we don't want to be in. So when you mix them up, it's very possible that over a period of time, you get exactly the multiple you mentioned or over another period of time, you get a higher one over -- and you might get a lower one. But what we're looking at is not the revenue multiple, it's strategic to do, we want to be in it, and by holding it are we creating any value for shareholders? So it's not about what the value has been, it's about what is the value today and can we grow it in the future for Reed Elsevier. And if we can't, why should we own it, right? That's the decision on the disposal, right? Do we see value-creation? Is it on our strategy? If not, why don't we give it to somebody else who's a more natural owner. When it comes to -- those are disposals. When it comes to acquisitions, we look at it completely differently and separately at any given point in time. We say, what's the value to us, what's the value to us in the future the way we are going to operate it, and we judge the value from there. But as you can see, we've come up with total amount of acquisitions that are fairly limited in the scale of the company and in the scale of our cash flow.

And just on disposals, say, the pruning process, if we can call it so, should be finishing in 2013 or it's going to be an ongoing process?

No, I don't see this as a project. I see it, as what you exactly said, which is a process. It's an ongoing process. It's a systematic, strategic transformation of Reed Elsevier. That's going to continue step by step. And I think what I mentioned is this idea that we're going to work to systematically transform each asset into a type of business we want it to be. And sometimes, those transformation are very successful. And you can see bankers at Albanac [ph] that we talked about at a seminar last year or Flightglobal is halfway through one of those. But sometimes, they don't work. And if they don't work, we might say, "This is never going to be the business we want it to be." Even though it's a very good business and good brand, for example, Variety. Very good business, good brand and good position, but it's not going to be the kind of business we wanted to be in, right? Then you have another example where you say we make the transformation systematic and successful [ph], but the industry developed it in a way and we say, "We don't want to continue to invest to build to do that like preemployment services." So I don't think that you can, at any given point in time, say that, that's going to be the end of that process as you said. I think the process will continue, but it may be higher or lower amount in any given year.

I'll take your point on cash conversion and margin, right, which is really about the difference between CapEx and depreciation. And I think what I said in my prepared remarks was that over the last decade we've converted cash at essentially about 96%, and last year at 94%. I think you can see a pretty consistent kind of pattern there. We've said in the past that we kind of target above 90%, and I see no reason why we wouldn't continue to do that and achieve that because if you think about what the elements of that are, it's CapEx less depreciation and then there's working capital, right. So, I mean, there's not a lot of elements moving around there. Working capital, I think, we're reasonably efficient. Obviously, we have a lot of negative working capital which is a pretty nice thing to have in any business. Some of that -- some businesses have positive working capital and some businesses because there are more subscription in nature, have advanced receipts, I mean, have negative working capital. So it's difficult to forecast the trend in working capital overall. But generally speaking, given that we've been about 96%, 94% last year, a lot of that is driven by the fact that depreciation at the moment is a little less than CapEx, right. We would expect that over time, as Erik was talking about with respect to legal, we probably expect the same phenomenon overall for the business, the depreciation and CapEx sort of catch-up over the longer term. It's going to take a few years but eventually you'll sort of get there. Then if you sort of think about that, and think about our business. What we're really doing, I think Erik pointed this out, thematically, for legal, but it really goes across all our businesses, we're making investments not just in new products but also investment in our platforms, our infrastructure. And so when you think about the overall cost base, while depreciation is a cost element, a relatively small actual cost element of our overall business is maybe going to increase a little bit. That would kind of be offset by the fact that we are also improving the overall efficiency and process efficiency of our businesses. And so when you wrap all that into our sort of cost philosophy, which is our cost growth, if you like, or the sort of -- we're trying to keep it at a little lower over time in our revenue growth, that it should mean that overall, we wouldn't see some specifics sort of degradation in margin just due to that factor.

Let's continue to move backwards there. You want to go here? Yes.

It's Tom Singlehurst from Citigroup. I had 2 questions. The first one was on exhibitions and that is -- obviously, you lost the Agrishow to Informa [ph]. Now I understand the direct impact of that is going to be de minimis within the context of the group. But I wanted to understand how these things come up for tender, what the parameters that you would have been judged on and seen as second best relative to Informa [ph]. And just more broadly, what percentage of your exhibitions are done on a sort of contract basis and how much or how many of them are owned outright? That's the first question. The second question is a difficult one to ask without sounding unkind to our Holland-based colleagues but what's the point of the second listing at this stage? There's a big gap, I mean, Alex is pointing out you're being a bit stingy on the dividend. Potentially, one way to be quite generous in a way that costs you nothing would just be to make the 2 lines fungible. I know it's not quite as easy as that, but can you just revisit the rationale for having the 2 listings and if it's really worth it at this stage?

Yes, okay. I'm going to actually ask Duncan to cover the second question, but I'll start with the first. The Agrishow you're talking about in Brazil was a management services contract. It's a show of very -- It's an excellent show. It's an excellent show, and we were happy to be servicing it for a while. But this is a show that was in the joint venture that we bought out in Brazil, and having in 2012 taken full ownership of the leading exhibition organizer in Brazil with full ownership of that. Our strategy in Brazil, as the leader, is to continue to build up organically shows that we own, shows that we can own and build and have residual value. And to have services contracts for existing shows is not on that strategic path. So we made a decision together with them, of course, that we'd be happy to let them take it back and reassign somebody else, and we will continue to invest and grow fully owned shows that we can continue to build from a fully owned subsidiary now that is the leading organizer in Brazil, not just in that region or that area [ph] but all regions and several different industry segments. So that was a mutually agreed decision that is a strategy that we're pursuing. You asked the question what percent of our overall shows are management services contract which, as you pointed out, are generally lower margin and lower value in many ways, even though, that's sometimes very important strategically in a country or in a location and certainly at certain point in time. They can be important and excellent shows, but that's the economic model. For us, they're single-digit percent of Reed exhibitions total revenues on the revenue side and you understand that the profit picture is also slightly different. So it's not a material number. Okay.

So I'll talk about dual listing. That's a good one for a new CFO coming in to take a look at. I've just spent a long time working somewhere in the past for a dual listed company, so it's not a new question. And I think if you take a look at it from the point of view, one thing to note, it's 2 companies, right? There are 2 companies that together own an economic interest in an overall operating entity which fundamentally is unified. But they are 2 distinct companies, and each of them actually have 2 listings. One in the U.S. and one in their home market. So you've got to remember those 2 companies have a history and a merger agreement, and agreement between them as to how they conduct business. It's a little different than having 1 company that just happens to have 2 listings. It's really -- it's quite distinct from that. And the current structure, in terms of actually how it affects us. It has really served us quite well. I mean, it really has advantages. It doesn't really fundamentally get in the way of how we run our operations. It's not really costing us anything from that point of view. And generally speaking, there are no material constraints on us from that. So there is no compelling reason to kind of undertake any kind of collapse, albeit really at this stage. Although we do take a look at it from time to time and make sure that whatever issues that could impact that and how it might change over time. But fundamentally, there are 2 companies, think about dividends, I mean the actual dividends it's prescribed how the dividend is equalized between the 2 companies, I mean, if it's actually going to the agreements, it's not that there are 2 distinct kind of things, it's actually an equalization agreement between them, and therefore, over time, because they own an economic interest in the same operating entity and have equalized dividends between the 2, fundamentally, they -- it creates some predictability about how that's going to operate over time and it's -- really at this stage no material reason to change that.

Okay, well, thank you very much, and thank you for joining us today.