Good morning, and welcome to our first quarter results. My name is Caroline Stewart, and I'm the Head of Investor Relations at UBS. This morning, Sergio Ermotti, our CEO, will present the highlights for the first quarter; and Tom Naratil, our CFO, will talk through the details. After our presentation, we'll take questions from analysts and investors and we'll address questions from journalists in a separate call this morning right after this call finishes. Before I hand over to Sergio, I'd like to draw your attention to the slide containing our cautionary statements with regards to forward-looking statements. Please read the slide carefully. Now I'd like to hand over to Sergio.

Thank you, Caroline. Good morning, everybody. For the first quarter, UBS delivered a strong results with adjusted profit before tax of CHF 1.9 billion and a net profit of almost CHF 1 billion, and this despite the ongoing transformation of the bank. While it is too early to declare victory, last quarter, we have demonstrated that our business model works both in theory, as well as in practice. But what's more important is the way in which we achieved our results. In a good but still volatile and challenging environment, we deployed our risk resources prudently and focused on our energies on delivering for our clients. The results underline our employees' relentless focus in the midst of significant change, as well as the continued loyalty of our clients. Therefore, I like to extend my thanks to our employees and our clients for their ongoing commitment to UBS. On a fully applied basis, our common equity Tier 1 ratio was 10.1% at the end of the first quarter despite stable risk-weighted assets. This means we have achieved our regulators' 2019 minimum common equity capital requirement 6 years early. Capital strengths remains a decisive factor for wealthy individuals and financial institutions worldwide and events in Cyprus underlying why. Our industry-leading capital position continue to be an important factor in our success and remains a unique competitive advantage for the bank. Of the best capitalized bank in our peer group, we attracted very strong net new money inflows as clients looked for safety, service and sound advice. We saw strong inflows across our asset-gathering businesses with CHF 24 billion of net new money in our Wealth Management businesses, robust net new money -- net new business inflows in Retail & Corporate and notable inflows, excluding money markets, in Global Asset Management. But this…

Thank you, Sergio. Good morning, everyone. As usual, my commentary will reference adjusted results. This quarter's adjusted results exclude the noncredit loss of CHF 181 million, proceeds from business disposals of CHF 65 million, costs related to our debt buyback of CHF 92 million and net restructuring charges of CHF 246 million. As Sergio mentioned, all our business divisions performed well this quarter and we delivered a pretax profit of CHF 1.9 billion. We reported a tax expense of CHF 458 million, comprised of deferred tax expense of CHF 319 million to offset profits in Switzerland and the U.S. and CHF 139 million of other tax expenses, mostly related to profits in other regions. The effective tax rate was 32%, higher than our guidance of 25% to 30% for the first half of this year. We expect it to be around 30% in the second quarter. We also expect to attribute CHF 150 million to CHF 200 million in profits to preferred noteholders in Q2. With regard to restructuring charges, we could see costs about CHF 250 million lower than we previously guided, as we've seen a lower cost per redundancies than we had assumed as a result of lower compensation in 2012 and certain credits related to IAS 19R. Wealth Management CHF 690 million pretax profit was its best results in almost 4 years and net new money of CHF 15 billion represents its best quarter since 2007. Revenues improved on higher client activity due to improve client sentiment and successful client engagement. Interest income benefited from loan and deposit growth, as well as higher treasury revenues. Both personnel and nonpersonnel expenses decreased. In G&A, expenses fell due to seasonally lower cost for marketing and communications, as well as lower litigation charges. Net new money was positive in all…

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Mr. Jon Peace from Nomura.

I had 2 questions, please. The first one is on Wealth Management. You've given some very clear guidance around gross margins, but how should we be thinking about net new money, which was also well ahead of consensus? In particular, I think you referenced some larger inflows in the quarter, so I just wondered whether that had an effect? The second question was related to the Investment Bank, the ROE printed this quarter was well above the targets that you'd outlined with the restructuring. How should we think about that going forward? Were you highly conservative, or was there exceptional elements to seasonality? I just wonder if you could give us some help with the sort of pro forma mix or run rate of revenues going forward?

Thank you, Jon. On gross margin, I think, that it's clearly, as you saw, the most important issue is that we had some volatility during the quarter. January was good, but we saw February coming down, and then March back at very good levels. In terms of net new money, your questions on net new money, we haven't seen big chunk of those assets. It's well spread across-the-board, well-diversified by clients. I have to say that when you look at Wealth Management outside the Americas, 2/3 of those assets, a big chunk of those assets was coming from new clients, so it's not just a gain in share of wallet, but it's also a substantial gain in market share. So nothing exceptional there. Of course, we continue to confirm our target for growth of net new money for the future. This was a very strong quarter, but clearly it would be not realistic to continue to expect this kind of growth going forward. In respect to return on allocated equities for the Investment Bank, I think, clearly, there is a seasonality effect, and clearly, we had also good business environment, particularly we had a couple of large transactions that affected positively the quarter. Having said that, even excluding those factors, I think that's the real point was the demonstration that the business model works, that we can, over time, aim at creating that sustainable return on allocated equities at least at 15% returns, which is our targets, i.e., moving the Investment Bank from a detractor, a dilutive factor to our earnings in terms of return on allocated equities to neutral or positive going forward.

The next question is from Huw Van Steenis from Morgan Stanley.

Just 2 things to dwell on. So congratulations in your best net new money for 5 years, I was just wondering if you could point to any particular things which would stand out? I was particularly struck by your inflows in emerging markets. Any comment also on any further potential outflows in Europe? And then secondly, I'm struck also that your return on allocated equities in the Investment Bank suggest you're the single most profitable Investment Bank on the planet this quarter. Any comments about your views on sustainability and any other sort of investments you might make as you tweak the investment plan?

Well, I think that -- Thank you, Huw. I think I'll take the question on the Investment Bank. Again, I think that there is a seasonality effect. There is a demonstration that basically -- when measured on a fully applied Basel III, and this is the factor that you have to take into consideration, many of those businesses wouldn't really make sense in the new paradigm. So that's the reason why we reposition our business. There is a seasonality effect. There is one-offs. But clearly, I would say I still think that even excluding those factors having the returns that we are showing on a fully applied basis are -- our aim is to demonstrate that we can be a best-in-class where size and scope is not necessarily the driving factor. We are focusing to be very competitive in the areas we choose to compete, and that's where we want to be measured. We don't want to be measured across-the-board doing everything to everybody. On net new money, I'll let -- maybe complement my comments before, Tom, if you want to add any?

Sure, Sergio. The one thing, Huw, I'd also add on return on attributed equity, including that seasonality that Sergio was talking about, we still believe that our guidance and our target of an RoaE, of greater than 15% is appropriate on a sustainable basis. When we look at net new money, what we're very pleased with is the fact that we've got double-digit growth rates exactly where we want them in APAC, emerging markets and ultra-high net worth segment. We're well diversified across multiple client relationships, but 75% of the net new money this quarter did come from our ultra-high net worth client base. Some of the other things that, I think, are notable, very strong growth in Switzerland, 8.3% growth, which is certainly a sign that we're picking up share in Switzerland. And in Europe, we had positive flows this quarter with onshore inflows outpacing the offshore outflows. So I think it's very well-balanced. In terms of all the things that we talked about regarding gross margin and some of the outlook for that, that outlook also applies in net new money going forward. And so I would certainly say that the first quarter has been an exceptional one.

Yes. Maybe I'll just add on Europe, very important to underline that while we had outflows from European clients booked in Switzerland as they converged into the new paradigm, we had inflows in our domestic European businesses. So that's very important to understand that booking in terms of Switzerland was positive, as Tom just said, based on a variety of clients booking in Switzerland. But when you look at European clients' behavior, it's very important to see that we have been able to more than offset outflows out of Switzerland into the net new market.

The next question is from Mr. Kian Abouhossein from JPMorgan. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: I have a few questions. The first one is regarding the legacy assets. You're very close to your CHF 85 billion target, and you're roughly CHF 10 billion off. And I was wondering if we should assume that the CHF 85 billion is really an extremely conservative target? And if you could give us any update on why you wouldn't reduce this number by -- for year end in terms of target? And related to that, you clearly, at the time of the restructuring announced, a mid-single-digit ROE, and hence, the analyst assumed some kind of markdown on your legacy assets. I don't see any note of legacy asset write-down. I assume CHF 1.7 billion pretax for this year in terms of legacy asset write-down, and you only have CHF 10 billion to go. I wonder if you could revise that ROE target, considering the legacy asset write-downs are very, very small, and how we should think about that? The second question is regarding offshore. You have given a number in the past of CHF 12 billion to CHF 30 billion of tax-related assets to flow out, and I wonder if you could give us an update of how much of the CHF 12 billion to CHF 30 billion have actually left so far? And the last question just coming back to margins, and apologies, I missed part of the -- beginning of the call, could you give us an update on how we should think about the margins? Because we clearly had a quite cautious message with the fourth quarter results. You clearly saw quite a big positive surprise here in Asia. Is the environment was better than what you expected, or is this purely seasonal and what you indicated in the past in terms of replication portfolio, et cetera, should still have a material negative impact and we should take that into account? If you could just run us a little bit through your thinking of transaction versus replication?

Again, I'm going to take it. It's Tom. I'll take the first 3, and Sergio is going to take the last one. On the legacy, your question on whether or not CHF 85 billion, this is for the non-core and legacy, whether or not that target is conservative. No, we think it's appropriate. I think the outperformance that we had since the introduction of the strategy in third quarter 2011, we had -- it's been clear, we had very, very strong performance in our reductions in the fourth quarter. I think we're getting to a more normalized rate. The other thing that I'd highlight for you, we've moved out a lot of these big chunks and we're down to many, many line items. And these line items are -- take more time, as there is much time to negotiate the transaction small or large, and you don't have quite as much impact when you move those positions out. One of the things that I think is really quite interesting is, when we started out with the non-core, we had 1.3 million different line items of inventory related for the derivatives book. Now we've moved that down to approximately 1 million. But as you can imagine, that's a very time-consuming and labor-intensive process. So we'll continue to focus. Here's that highlight as we've done in the past is, sometimes, it's not that we weren't working this quarter with all the energy that we could to reduce positions. Some of these things are also more heavily negotiated transaction where it might take us a quarter or 2 of discussion and negotiation for us to complete the transaction itself. Your second question was on the guidance that we had previously given on a mid-single-digit ROE for this year and next year. I would say that even with this result, we do think that, that still is the appropriate guidance for the year. Your comment sort of led into what about the potential losses that you could see in the non-core and Legacy Portfolio. I'd highlight we did have gains in the portfolio during the course of the first quarter. It was certainly a friendly quarter for us where we saw both realized and unrealized gains. But at the same time, we've got to make it through the entire year. Your third question had to do with the offshore outlook guidance that we've given previously, at CHF 12 billion to CHF 30 billion. We still think that that's the appropriate range of guidance.

Yes, on the margins, again, the analysis is very simple. If we look back into 2012 and even during the first quarter, the volatility of return on assets, basically, means that we need to stay very realistic about those outcome, also because we are growing very fast in net new money. Assets are also growing as a function of financial markets increasing, while credit -- while client's risk appetite is still basically very, very cautious. So it's very -- and last but not least, I have to say that our penetration and our growth in the ultra-high net worth space is higher than the size, the average size of the portfolio, therefore, you have a dilutive effect on return on assets, while on a pretax, you have a neutral effect. Our goal is clearly to focus on return on assets, but the ultimate real growth for us is to improve our pretax profit margins. And so we have to balance this elements of net new money growth and balance also -- working on costs and making sure that our bottom line improves in a sustainable way. Taking in account also that clients' risk appetite is very low and we are taking a medium to long-term view on our business. So we are building up scope for future developments. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And just to follow up, assuming that you can get to 13% Tier 1 because, let's say, the environment is much better than expected by the end of this year. Should we assume that as soon as you hit the 13%, the payout ratio will go to 50%? Let's assume just you will get to 13%, would that be kind of just a theoretical calculation we hit 13%, we pay 50% right away? Or would it still be less likely that you would do that even if you're just over 13%?

Well, look, it's difficult to make comments on wonderland, and clearly, such a rosy outcome. But I think that to stay realistic, we stay on our targets. We told clearly that if -- when we achieve a 13%, our core equity Tier 1 Basel III fully applied, we will have at least a 50% payout. So if it's coming this year and you are so positive about the developments, whatever, but our goal is to achieve this target by the end of 2014. That's our target. I think it's a credible and realistic way to look at the entire dynamics affecting our business.

And Kian, the other thing that I'd add to Sergio's comment, we've also talked about wanting to maintain post stress on Basel III fully applied ratio of 10%. So that's another point that we keep in mind in terms of looking at what's the buffer amount over 13% that we need. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: I appreciate conservatism. You have done very well. If I may ask one more very quick one, Page 17, I struggle to forecast clearly this division. And I was wondering -- and I guess, this big deltas in non-core revenues here and even exit [ph] debt valuation, can you give us an idea of how we should think about the run rate of this division, assuming no gains or no losses? So we just have an idea what the revenue line is underlying?

So the one thing I'd say is there is no run rate in this business, is the best way to think about it. The rundown portfolio, we were benefited in the quarter certainly by both realized and unrealized gains. We did take -- we took a bunch of balance sheet here down CHF 15 billion, we sold what I consider to be our big cash positions that we had in credit-related positions. So certainly, it was a friendly quarter for us to do that. Those were big balance sheet movers, but not big RWA movers. They were low risk-weighted items. So we benefited from that. I think looking forward, the best guidance on this is to take the mid-single-digit target on ROE and then factor in your other estimates on the divisions and then you'll back into what we expect here.

The next question is from Mr. Kinner Lakhani from Citigroup.

So a few questions. Firstly, starting off with the StabFund, just observing the trends on the SNB website of the StabFund loan. It looks like in the Q1, the loan has come down by 25%. And at this run rate, it would appear that by the end of the year, residual assets would be de minimis. And therefore, wondering whether we should start thinking about exercise of the option? And whether in any of your guidance on the 11.5% and 13% Basel III ratio, you have the SNB stuff on exercise as part of your assumptions? And secondly, just a couple of questions around the equities and the ECM business. Just on equities, just to understand if there was any meaningful benefit in this quarter from the reversal of the losses in Japan in Q4? And on the ECM side, the large private transaction that you highlight, if it had any benefit in revenue terms at the Wealth Management level from the 1 bank strategy?

So, Kinner, on your first question on the StabFund, we continue to evaluate the option on the StabFund. It is an option. We don't feel pressed on that as we've said in the past. Exercising it early does not have an advantage for us because the RWAs that would come on the balance sheet. And based on our current view at this point in time, we don't believe that, that's a 2013 event for us. In terms of ECM, I don't know if I botched my understanding of your question, in terms of the performance in ECM, we did have, and I think you'll remember the comments that we made in the last quarter's results, where we had a loss in Japan through this trading. In the fourth quarter, we said, in response to a question we didn't think that, that was problematic issue at all for us, and we see that, certainly in this quarter, we had a very strong performance, and we believe that the fourth quarter effect was a onetime item for us. And then last, if you could repeat your third question, I'm sorry.

Yes, it was just whether the large private transaction would have also benefited the Wealth Management line? Occasionally, if it's Wealth Management-related revenues, I guess, they are booked in Wealth Management as well. Or was it just a very unique ECM transaction?

That's very unique ECM transaction. I think our comments that we've made on collaboration between all of our divisions for the quarter, I think, show what can happen when you've got a focused IB. I think that's a very important thing to emphasize. Now the IB, as we have it today, is the IB that we want. That IB doesn't shrink. That IB is one that we want to grow. It's going to grow as a result of its interactions with its own clients, but also primarily through its interactions with the clients for the rest of the group, and we saw some very encouraging signs on this first quarter of the year on that. We saw encouraging signs in Wealth Management flows. We saw encouraging signs certainly Wealth Management Americas. And it's a continuation of what we've seen in the universal bank model in Switzerland. We continue to see great results from that.

The next question is from Fiona Swaffield from RBC Capital Markets.

Three questions, please. One is, you mentioned again the stressed core Tier 1 target of 10%. I mean, can you give us any help on how significant your stress scenario could be? Is this like a 300, 500, 600 basis points number, and what the scenario is? And second issue is on the cost side, where are we versus the kind of a CHF 20 billion number? I'm not quite sure what progress we've made, or is it too early to say? So I think you have given a number of CHF 20 billion end '15 potentially cost base. And the third issue is just on the -- this issue was on non-core and the slide where you go through what's left, Slide 18. On the OTC, still there's quite a bit less of the funded assets, is that a plan because I know you gave some numbers in Q3, and it does seem to be on plan. Wondered if you could talk about any decisions to accelerate that or not?

So, Fiona, on your first question on the 10% -- on the 10% post stress. What I would say is the stress scenario that we currently run is a Eurozone stress scenario. Obviously, it's been a scenario, I think, that almost everyone has been running probably for the last 18 months to 2 years. The composition of what that scenario looks like has changed certainly over the course of that time period. Now there are 2 ways that we deal with that 10% post-stress number. One is, how do we reduce stress? Overall in our portfolio, one of the best ways that we can do that is by continuing the pace of performance that we've had in reducing the non-core and Legacy Portfolios over the course of the past couple of years. So I think that's one, and the second thing is obviously building the fully applied ratio up to the 13% target that we have. So the combination of those two, the combination of those 2 are what take us closer to achieving the cross over of those 2 points, approximately at the time that we reach the 13% CET1 ratio at the end of 2014. In terms of the cost performance that we had, as you know, there a number of different effects to look at in this over the course of a number of years and looking at the comparisons. The thing we've shown on Slide 16 to you, I think, is very important to see. Number one, the headcount reduction that we've made, certainly, are coming through in the personnel lines, or the salary lines and also the nonpersonnel costs, so we've had good cost control in the rest of our G&A lines. Certainly, what's going to fluctuate quarter-to-quarter in a lot of these comparisons in…

The next question is from Mr. Christopher Wheeler from Mediobanca.

A couple of questions. First, on the Investment Bank and a couple on Wealth Management, if I may. First of all, on the Investment Bank, obviously, [indiscernible] being very active in the market, but I think you were talking about a CHF 1.5 billion investment program in the new Investment Bank, if we can call it that. Perhaps if you could give us a clue as to what progress you've made in the sort of the 6 months or so since you started this project? Second thing really is going to what Jon asked at the beginning about the Investment Bank's ROE and really looking at it the other way, your cost-to-income ratio was just under 65%. You have a target of 65% to 85%. It's something you can control rather more than your revenues. Where should we be looking at that going forward, are you -- do you feel like you can sit towards the bottom end of that, or is it genuinely dependent on just how volatile revenues are? And then a couple on Wealth Management. Can you just perhaps tell us where you are on the retrocession situation in the Swiss wealth manager, and perhaps what your expectations are for -- at least some you may have to make and perhaps what you might have provided to date for that, if anything? And then finally, just on Wealth Management Americas, obviously, continued progress there, which is great. But I suppose what probably we're looking at is obviously Morgan Stanley sort of emerged from its investment phase to be posting a 17% pretax margin. Are there some accounting anomalies there or what is it that you need, I think, to move up to that kind of level, other than just better markets?

Okay, Chris, thanks for those questions. First -- on your first question on the IB, on the CHF 1.5 billion investment program that we've described, that was total for the group, and not just for the IB [ph]. We did say that because we wanted to grow the Investment Bank, we certainly would be making investments there. I think where you'll see us making investments is, in fact, same places that we've been emphasizing before, FX, in our FX technology platform, that certainly has paid very strong, very strong dividends for us over the course of the past 1.5 years. So that would be a continued place where we'd expect to invest. The equities business, certainly investing our platform, there it's critical to us. And then finally, third, talent acquisition is also a key part of what we'll certainly be doing on a targeted basis, and Andrea, as you note, has been very active in that process. Your questions on ROE and the cost-to-income ratio for the Investment Bank and where we think that will be, certainly, the first quarter, as Sergio has mentioned, is one that has been seasonally strong, and we also performed well. We had a few one-offs in there also. We think the range that we gave of the 65% to 85% range over the course of the cycle is the right range for us. We're going to be very disciplined on costs, but we'll be very focused on our clients, and we think the range is appropriate. In the better part of the marketplace cycle, we've indicated we'll be at the lower end of the range and then the tougher parts of the market cycle we'll be at the higher end of the range. On the retrocessions, I think that as we -- as you'd…

I mean just follow up on that, Tom, looking at the financial advisors, which is obviously one way you can look to continue to crank up the business, you're starting to sort of push those up a little bit. Is that something, I mean, which Bob is looking at in terms of building on the successful business by perhaps beefing up the sales force, or does he want to keep it pretty tight?

Bob is very disciplined in his strategy execution. He likes the focus that we have with the 6,500 to 7,000 range that we have. It allows us to focus on a productivity-led strategy, a productivity-led strategy is one that will drive better bottom line.

The last question from analysts and investors will be from Mrs. Teresa Nielsen from Bank Vontobel.

I have a question regarding your repricing strategy in Wealth Management. Did we already see some impact from that here in the first quarter 2013, or is it really something that we should expect to see over the next quarters? And then with regards to the withholding tax agreement with U.K. and Austria, do you expect us to see some outsource in the second quarter there from this impact? And is that something, which has already impacted your first quarter results?

Teresa, it's Tom. So on the repricing for the Wealth Management strategy, no impact in 1Q. But in terms of thinking about the movement of the product, we start the retrocession free portion of that, in the next quarter. So as a result, we'll be foregoing revenue. And then the price increases come in following that, so there will be a little bit of a valley in the revenue run rate. On your questions on withholding tax, the guidance that we've given on CHF 12 billion to CHF 30 billion really takes into account all the different geographies that we're considering in Europe, including the U.K. and Austria. I think the one thing that we highlight, behavior of clients is, in a lot of time, anticipatory, so there is some activity that's occurred in advance of it. And then there's also the behavior that occurs along the way. So I don't think there's anything unique in terms of a spike that you should think of because of the 2 agreements that you mentioned. However, as we've indicated, based on the behavior of our clients, we think that CHF 12 billion to CHF 30 billion, after all, is more likely to be front loaded than it is to be something that occurs over an extended period of time.

Okay. This was the last question. I think, let's say, in summary, those were good set of results, very pleased with the fact that the strategy works. And we continue to be the best capitalized banks amongst our peers. And now, we look with confidence about -- but also with a realistic outlook about the future, and we will continue to execute on our strategy. Many thanks for joining us today, and we'll see you at the end of July. Thanks.