So ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Reed Elsevier's 2013 results presentation. For those of you who've made it in on this busy morning, thank you for coming. And for those of you who are listening on our website, thank you for joining us. I hope you'll agree with me these were good set of results as we've continued to deliver on the longer-term strategic and financial priorities. We had underlying revenue growth across all our business areas, with acceleration of growth in both risk and Business Information. Underlying operating profit and earnings per share were well up on 2012, with the former benefiting from organic development and portfolio reshaping, while the latter also benefited from lower interest charges and from our share buyback program. These buybacks have been achieved as a result of the strength of both our cash flow and our balance sheet, and you will have seen from our announcement the specifics of the further buybacks that we're planning in 2014. You will also have seen that we're recommending full year dividend increases broadly in line with our earnings per share increases across the 2 parent companies. As you all know, we announced in September that Duncan Palmer regrettably has given us notice because he had to return to the U.S. for personal reasons. In early January, we announced that Nick Luff would be joining us as CFO later this year when he is released from Centrica. We will obviously update you when we have further news on Nick's joining date. Meanwhile, Duncan continues in post, and he will now present our results, and then Erik will elaborate on the business developments in more detail. Duncan?

Thank you, Tony, and good morning, everybody. I would like to start this morning with the financial highlights for 2013. Our primary measures of revenue and operating profit growth are on an underlying basis, which exclude the effects of currency movements and all of the acquisitions and disposals which took place in the past 2 years. In 2013, we maintained the trends and financial performance delivered in 2012. Underlying revenue growth was 3%, excluding the effects of biennial event cycling in our Exhibitions business, or 2%, including the impact of cycling. Underlying adjusted operating profit grew 5%. Adjusted earnings per share growth was 7% in constant currency terms, with the sterling-denominated PLC-adjusted EPS up 9% and the euro-denominated NV adjusted EPS up 5%, reflecting a stronger euro during the year. Reported earnings per share were up 9% for PLC and 5% for NV. Dividends for the full year were up 7% to 24.6p for PLC and up 8% to EUR 0.506 for NV. Return on invested capital increased by 0.4 percentage point to 12.1%. Our financial position remains strong. Net debt to EBITDA, after adjusting for the net pension deficit and capitalizing leases was 2.1x compared to 2.2x at the end of last year. This ratio and other credit metrics are comfortably within the range of our credit rating and offer us ample financial flexibility. Operating cash conversion was 97%, consistent with our long-term target of over 90%. I will now go through the profit and loss statement in a little more detail. I'll present the results in sterling. In the Appendix, you can find the equivalent euro results. As we have discussed previously, the revised IAS 19 relating to pension accounting came into effect from the 1st of January 2013. Accordingly, 2012 numbers have been restated on the new…

Thank you, Duncan. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming and for taking the time to be here today. As you've seen this morning, our positive operating and financial momentum continued throughout 2013, and we further transformed our business profile and improved our earnings quality, again, primarily through organic development. In terms of our operating and financial momentum, underlying revenue growth, excluding biennial exhibition cycling, was again 3%. Underlying operating profit grew 5%, and earnings per share at constant currencies grew 7%, and this, in a cycling out-year. Return on invested capital reached 12.1%, an increase of 40 basis points over 2012 on a like-for-like basis. All major business areas again delivered underlying revenue growth, with Risk Solutions and Business Information both growing slightly faster than in 2012. And all business areas again delivered underlying operating profit growth. Our STM business grew 2%, with strong growth in article submissions and usage across science and medical research, and further improvement in journal quality metrics. Revenue growth was driven by solid subscription renewals and new sales. Author pays, or author's funder pays open access article volumes, continue to grow strongly from a small base. We saw continued good growth from product innovation in scientific and clinical databases and tools, and we saw good electronic revenue growth across all segments, but declines continued in print book sales and print pharma promotion, together representing close to 20% of Elsevier's revenues. In 2014, we expect continued volume growth and strong demand for electronic products and solutions, continued declines in print books and pharma promotion, and modest underlying growth overall. Risk Solutions grew 8%, up from 6% in 2012, with strong underlying revenue growth across all segments. Insurance saw solid volume growth, achieved good uptake on new products and continued its expansion in new verticals and…

It's Sami Kassab for Exane BNP Paribas. Two questions from me, please. If my memory serves me right, in 2006, your Executive Board, of which you were part of, told the market that Reed Elsevier was a company that, year in, year out, could allocate 40% of its annual free cash flows to a buyback. When we had a buyback in '06, a buyback in '07, the crisis came about, the buyback stops, you took over, things looked up and improved. And this morning, you are telling us that you are again allocating around 40% of your free cash flow to a share buyback. Hence, my question, should we take from this announcement that you're reverting to a -- to the historic capital allocation policy, and that going forward, Reed Elsevier is a company that, year in, year out, should be able to allocate 40% of its free cash flow to a share buyback? And the second question, do you think that, excluding exhibition cycling, we can see an acceleration in organic revenue growth in 2014 without any further disposals?

Let me answer both of those. The first one, I -- the way we look at our business, at this point, we do not think that setting a fixed percent policy would be appropriate. If you see how it is, we're articulating our priorities. That is number one, to drive organic growth and allocate capital to organic development, organic investment. That's our #1 priority to transform the business. That can fluctuate a bit, but we're not a very capital-intensive business. So it will fluctuate a bit, but that's our #1 priority. After that, the portfolio reshaping is our second priority. And in any one year, even though our strategy is clear, we're looking to add small acquisitions in the content data sets and asset in high-growth markets and geographies. We might, some years, find a handful or a dozen of those that are all in the tens of millions, and we could, once in a while, as we have over the last 5 years, I think we found one that was over GBP 100 million, right, or in the hundreds. So you could see one of those coming in any one given year, and you could even see a scenario within one 12-month period, 2 might appear. But you see, over a longer time period, over several years, you can see that the pattern we have had is not different from the pattern we're looking for going forward. But that has some implications for how the cash is used in any one year. And the same thing on the disposals side: I think our strategy with disposals is clear. When we see assets that we cannot transform into the type of asset we want to have across Reed Elsevier, we will sell it. And if we also see an asset that is difficult to transform but we don't see material future value creation, we will sell it. That can also go up and down in different years, and the numbers can be different. So therefore, I don't think it's right to look at a specific fixed percentage, but I think our approach should be clear to you at this point, what we're looking to do. The second question, you said revenue growth x cycling underlying revenue growth in 2014. I -- if I look at it, where we are today, at the beginning of the year, and you look at the early trends in the growth rates across our business, there are some small variations here and there, by market, by geography, by segment, as I've talked about. But if you look at it overall, broadly speaking, the growth trends are very similar to what we saw throughout the full year 2013. Okay, let's go over there.

It's Nick Dempsey from Barclays. Three questions, please. First one, what is clear we saw flat organic growth in the health books in 2013. And when you look at enrollments in nursing schools and medical schools, they're going up. So I wondered if you could give us some more color on why your books keep going down and if that was sort of business that you can transform into something else to your previous point. Second question, when you look at the print declines that you showed and when you showed the different growth by format, how much of those print declines are going into your electronic growth? In other words, if that print keeps coming down by 2, 3 points a year, should overall growth go up or not? And the third question, since 2008, I think the margin at Elsevier has gone up by about 100 bps on average a year. I know that some of that has to do with hedging, and Duncan made the point on that. Excluding hedging, can you keep that margin going up? Or are we plateauing?

Okay. First, books, you said, why down? I think what I said -- just to be precise, I think I said print books continued to decline. And in our book segment, one of the major things that's going on is the shift from print to electronic. In some of our specific book segments, that means that we're growing -- going from print to electronic, and the overall book revenues in certain subsegment is actually growing as you're doing that transition. And the migration from print to electronic creates opportunities to actually introduce a different title set and sell them differently, which can have a positive growth in total. In some other segments, the print to electronic migration is combined with a weak economic environment or a specific enrollment numbers in certain subsegments on -- where you can actually look and it can add up, like it has done for a couple of years as a negative -- in negative territory. And in some places, that's coming back up a little bit; in other places, staying down. What exactly -- I think it's more driven right now by with the market environment is in the subsegments, than an overall book trend. I don't think books as an overall business if you think them as being in print and electronic format, meaning you think of it as reference or educational materials. I don't think it's inherently a bad segment or a bad business or will have permanent negative trends. But you will see a format migration, right. You continue to see a format migration. If you take our book business, overall, right now across all of Elsevier, roughly 1/3 might now be in electronic format or something like that. And that's much higher in certain deep scientific segments and in certain medical,…

It's Mark Braley, Deutsche Bank. Sort of one question and then a couple of technicals. On open access, if I remember the sort of original timetable around the policy changes that were made, we should start to see a bigger volume of open-access-mandated research coming to publications sort of late '15 or into 2016. I suppose my first question is, is that timetable still what you're expecting? And then the second part of my question is, is your business, if you like, in open access, is that already scaled to deal with that if that does come through? So is the change in your business due to open access? Do you still expect that to be incremental? Or is there an element of step change that's now on the horizon? And then the technical ones were, I wonder if I can just ask on the cycling impact being rather smaller. Is that because of changes in the timing of some of the biennials? Or is it because acquisitions have kind of filled in the gap, if you know what I mean? And then apologies if I missed it, CapEx for 2014 and perhaps sort of pound million number?

Okay. I think I'll let Duncan get back in the end to the CapEx question, but I will start with the other 2. The omni open access or mandated open access in different geographies, I think the one you probably think about, primarily the U.K. policy, the volume growth from that, I think to some extent, has started because many people have started to operate in that direction. And I also think that the implementation will then take -- come through different steps. And I think you will see a gradual evolution. I don't think there will be a step all of a sudden, where on one day, it flips. I think you are likely to see different individuals and different research areas sort of move over at different rates even before they feel like they have to for different reasons, right. And then I think you will follow afterwards, and there are always implementation phasing issues on anything like this. We have started to scale up significantly. I mean, we have now. I think we have an author pays option in over 1,600 of our journals. And I think we operate over 70 independent, stand-alone sort of author pays open access journals as well. And those numbers are both growing on an ongoing basis. And the volume we took in last year was significantly higher than the volume before. But it's still -- they still represent a small share of what we do just like it represents a small share of the global volume of research. So I don't see any material impact that you can -- you will be able to find from these on our global volumes over the next few years, either as a positive volume or revenue effect or as a negative -- positive --…

Yes, the question was on what's the pound number that we have with CapEx in 2014. What we said was -- or what I said was that overall CapEx as a percent of revenues in '14 would be broadly in line with recent levels. In 2012, it was 5.5% of revenues. In 2013, it was 5.1% of revenues. And I think in 2011, from memory, it was in that sort of range as well. So I think that answers your question. At least you're nodding happily.

Okay, why don't we now go over here and then -- the mic's here.

It's Matthew Walker from Nomura. Just one question really, which is going back to open access. Can you update us on the faster legislation in Congress? And can you say for -- I guess for the U.S. market, if that was successful and the embargo period was changed from 6 months to 0, let's say, what impact would that have on the business?

I think there are a lot of different legislative initiatives going on and have been going on for over a decade now in many of our different markets, including many in the U.S. Of course, we are now on 10 years after the initial policy declaration of the largest government funding agency, NIH. And as you know, we have now been working with them on the process of voluntary posting since 2005. So we're almost 9 years into that one with the largest agency. There are many different things going on right now, and the one you mentioned is one of them. But I think the primary focus in the U.S. right now is actually on the White House OSTP policy, right, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, that issued something about a year ago and looking at different guidelines by different agencies. And that's where the discussion is happening, those -- the agencies that are looking at it, and they're looking at different time lines for manuscript posting policies. And they're doing that in conjunction with industry associations and with other user groups. And I think that's probably where you would see a change or some extension of the NIH policy. NIH represents about half the research of that, what was covered. So that's -- so over half is already covered. Your question, theoretically, is if something went to 0, embargo period, well, that means then if you actually want it to be published with 0, then you're back to the U.K. policy, the finchpo [ph], which is then the only reason anybody would publish is because it's an author pays model, which an author pays open access, which we're perfectly fine doing and we've demonstrated we can do and scale up. So there, you basically have 2 choices. Either you want to have it published with immediate availability without subscription fees and then it's an offer or offer's funder paid model. You pay from that side, and then it's immediately available for free to the user, but you pay on the author or the generating funding body side. Or you have a traditional subscription model, where it's free to the authors, it's free to the funding body to submit then get published, but the subscribers pay. And if you say that you want to switch at the point of publication, you pick between the 2, basically. You say, "Would you want it free to users? Or do you want it free to authors?" And at 0, that's the choice you've then made, and there's nothing wrong with that choice. It's an alternative that we're operating with, as I said, and growing rapidly. Okay, let's go over there.

It's Padi from Goldman Sachs. I've only got one question on the Legal business. I note your sort of subdued outlook, but you seem to be launching a lot of new products and applications. Do you think you can kind of grow ahead of a subdued market because of all that activity? Or is there no pricing benefit to that?

Well, I mean, of course, what we are trying to do in Legal, as in our other markets, is to make sure that we continue to improve our content, our data sets, our electronic tools, our analytics, our platforms and then to make them more valuable, so that our customers see more value, want to use them more. And over time, we have more customers who want them from us so that we can grow our revenues. That's what we're hoping for, right. And that's what we're trying to do. And the market is slow right now. You can see that from us. You can see that from any other provider into legal markets. You can see from legal industry studies. It's basically a flat market. So therefore, we are focusing all our time not on predicting the market, but on doing exactly what we just talked about, which is to improve our own products and roll them out and roll out platforms and then streamline our operations behind it as we modernize. So that's what we're focusing our efforts on. And that should then, over time, put us in a better position to get improved revenue growth even if the markets are not improving. But it's very, very difficult because you're dealing with a market that's currently not growing, and you're dealing with other service providers that are not really growing, and you're dealing with people who like the tools they use, the tools that we provide them, and other people are providing them. They're good tools. They're used by professionals that are very busy, and they see good value in them. And therefore, the base case is that it's difficult to break out of the broad market growth when you have a business of this scale, right. But that's, of course, what we're trying to do. Yes? Just come this way.

It's Andrea Beneventi from Kepler Cheuvreux. Another 2 questions for Legal from me, please. First, could you quantify the savings you expect from the decommissioning of the old Lexis and maybe also the timing of the process? And secondly, what share of Legal revenues come from duplicated content that are sold to the same customers in both print and online format? And will each format billed separately, please?

Yes. On the savings and decommissioning of old systems, we do not think of the decommissioning as a separate cost bucket. We see what we're doing as a multi-year process, where we're, over time, replacing hundreds of old systems with a modern infrastructure from front to back, from the front then customer interface to the content database to the back office. And we're going through that slice by slice, module by module, customer segment by segment, continent by continent, geography by geography. So therefore -- and at the same time as we're doing that, we're then streamlining our own operations, our organizational structure, our systems, our content processes and so on. And while we are currently operating with the duplication in some geographies, right, and we operate both on the old and the new in the U.S., our largest market right now. We see this as a never-ending process then are driving profit efficiencies out of it as we gradually decommission 1 or 2 of the old systems at a time. So the way I see it is, it's going to take many years and it will be gradual process, and we have not tried to separately quantify what would be the decommissioning part of it. What you're seeing in our margins, though, is that every single year now, since we've hit our peak spend point a couple of years ago, is that we're now trying to drive our cost growth below revenue growth despite the fact that we have increasing depreciation coming through, and that is because of these efforts in combination. So that's the way we view it. And it will take several years, and it will be a gradual process. The second question was the duplication, where people are buying both. We have -- as you probably…

It's Giasone Salati from Redburn. A couple of questions, please, both, I think, a bit technical. Based on the currency hedging you have in place now, can you give us a very precise outlook? I'm just kidding. Just a broad outlook of what impact on margins we could have depending on currency movements or on the currency rates you have now in the market? And secondly, the increase in the positional expenditure [ph] sales, is that going to continue to any sizable amount? And is that hiding an actually better underlying EBITDA trend compared to adjusted operating profit?

See, I understood the first one. I'm going to ask Duncan to answer that one. The second one, I didn't understand what you said exactly. So I will definitely ask Duncan to answer that one.

I did not understand any of those.

It's going to be my accent. Depreciation as a percentage of sales was up, I think, this year. Do you expect that to be up again in 2014? And is that hiding actually a better underlying EBITDA trend in terms of OpEx?

Okay, I got it now.

I understand the question now.

Yes. Me, too.

On the currency, what we quantified -- and I think what quantified quite specifically was that we think the sensitivity of our overall profit before tax to sort of currency movement, particularly a 1% move in the dollar against all other currencies, right. So if you look at that sensitivity, what we quantified was that would have an impact of about GBP 7 million, which is also about EUR 9 million on our overall profit before tax, right. That's kind of the sensitivity of that. And you can ripple that through into our overall margin, or you could even make an estimate of that because you've got interest deducted in that, but you can -- you could probably estimate out the interest impact as well. And so that will probably give you the ability to implement -- look at overall margin. We do quantify, I think, in the Appendix the impact. And I haven't got the number exactly in front of me now, but it is in the Appendix, the impact on Elsevier margin at the hedging program. Exactly, how much impact that was? From memory, I think it was about double in 2012 of what it was in 2013. I think in '13, it was about 0.3%, from memory. I haven't got the chart right in front of me, but it's in the Appendix. And we would expect it in '14 to be still positive but a little bit less. Maybe 24 million, I think, in '12; 12 million in '13. And it would be less but still positive in '14.

And on depreciation?

Depreciation, you're right. Yes, the depreciation was higher as a percentage of sales in '13 and '12, largely reflecting the fact that there's, I think, more depreciation in the Legal business. I think it was a $22 million increase in depreciation or a GBP 13 million increase in depreciation. I think, $16 million of that, from memory, is Legal. The vast majority was Legal. And again, as New Lexis comes on, I think that depreciation is kind of catching up. So probably, I would expect depreciation to be a little bit higher in '14 as well. So if that answers your question...

Yes.

Yes, in effect, right, that, therefore -- because we're having slightly higher depreciation. If you wanted to do an EBITDA calculation, excluding that slight increase, you will be slightly better on a trend basis, not a big number, but slightly better. So let's move back there.

Margo Joris from KBC Securities. Your outlook statements for the Exhibition business was quite cautious. Could you elaborate a little bit on the trends you're seeing on the recent developments in Europe, and the sentiments or discussions with customers but also the geographical breakdown? And then actually, the same for the emerging markets, so you expect a slightly slower growth rate? Could you shed a bit of light on that? Is it because of macroeconomic conditions, tougher comps or another specific reason?

Yes. If you look at Exhibitions, you said, first, in Europe, what we're seeing right now in our different European markets, both geographically and in terms of segment, it's, in Europe, very similar to last year. I mean, if you look across -- of course, there are always some variations here and there if you look. But Europe is very similar to a year ago, and you saw where we ended up last year. But there's no -- there is, of course, no indication here of what that will look like in 6 or 9 or 12 months, right, as we get towards the end of the year. It's too early for us to tell, but at this point, it's not materially different in Europe. In emerging markets, you said, we are doing -- currently doing very well in emerging markets. We're continuing to grow strongly, but the macroeconomic environment, the economic sort of industry growth cycle there, has slowed down a bit in our large market. It's very clear that that's what's happening to the industries around us and the industries we serve. We are still growing very well. We're going to continue to grow very well in those markets if the economy stays where it is today. But where you previously -- in a country, for example, where you previously have seen a growth rate in the mid-teens, you might now be just about double digits. Or where you previously see some -- saw something in the low double digits, you might now be in the high-single digits, right. On some of those markets that we see the slowdown, the economies might have slowed down more than that. But because we see growth opportunities, we are launching Exhibitions into sectors. We're extending our international brands into those markets, we're picking new geography and so on, we can grow in Exhibitions if the economic situation is the way it is today. We can grow faster than the local GDP growth in the economy. But still, if it is slower growth rate overall, we will be a few percentage points lower in those geographies, right. That's what we're seeing today, okay. Alexander Christian DeGroote - Panmure Gordon & Co. plc, Research Division: It's Alex DeGroote from Panmure Gordon. I have a question related to assets for sale in the balance sheet, GBP 21 million versus, I think, short of GBP 300 million last year. Is that a proxy for where we are on the disposal program, because I would imagine most of the heavy lifting is now being done in terms of exiting those businesses where you felt the fit was weak?

Yes. I think the anomaly there is probably that last year, we were in the process of selling a couple of big things right at the end. And I can't remember exactly where we were on the screening business, but I think that was one of our larger disposals, and it happened early in the year, right. So if you look at where we are now, we're still active. We did close a couple of sales in January this year, but they're much smaller. Last year, we had bigger ones pending, right, at the turn. So that's the explanation of why the number is what it is right now. If you then go to your second question, it's, where are we overall in our disposal program? We are going to continue all the time to review our assets and try to transform them. Our transformation strategy is as we have described it. We're going to continue to do that. We will still find assets on an ongoing basis that we see that the transformation is not working out the way we hoped to or it's working out the way we hoped to but it's changing slightly, and we don't see a lot of value creation and we might exit. So I think you will see a continued process of selling off assets. But I think it's more likely that you see a continued process of small assets. Individually, smaller assets have lower numbers than the 3 or -- 2, 3, 4 that have been larger that we have spun off or sold in the last few years, right. They've been a few that were larger than the typical. I think if you take those 3, 4 out and then go with a lower one, that's probably the type you'll see we'll continue to process. Okay, so back here then again.

It's Tom from Citigroup. Just one question. It's on Risk Solutions and Business Information. You keep on flirting with the idea of combining them fully, I'm already certainly showing them on a combined basis. I was just wondering, is there any inefficiency from having them separate? Or is there any efficiency from bringing them together and just having them as one big lump, not separately disclosing the way that you're currently...

Yes. I'm not sure I would use the headline, one big lump. But what we're doing there is strategic to drive future growth opportunities. We have Risk Solutions, with a very high-quality manager of very large databases, very powerful analytics, very advanced technology but primarily U.S.-oriented and in certain risk markets. What we then -- when we put that together with the old RBI under a larger umbrella with one CEO, you can now leverage those skills, those assets alongside the broader geographic footprint and industry-specific databases at -- in Business Information. And that enables then a process of getting faster into adjacent markets, both adjacent segments, industry segments, as well as faster geographic expansion. We have a footprint you're building on and a skill set and an employment base. That's why we're doing it. It is not clear to me that this will have any material cost benefits or any integration costs because we're not looking at fundamental cost changes around that. It is more of a growth platform combination that we're looking for. So hopefully, over many years in the future, you will actually see that they have built on each other's footprint and on each other's assets to get a higher organic growth over a longer of time than they would have done separately. That's the logic. Okay, well, thank you very much for coming, and I hope to see you again soon.