Good morning. It's Martin Osinga here from Investor Relations. Welcome to our fourth quarter results presentation. This morning, our CEO, Sergio Ermotti, will take you through the highlights of our performance for the full year. Then our CFO and COO, Tom Naratil, will take you through the details of our fourth quarter results. We'll then take questions from analysts, and this will be followed immediately by a Q&A session for journalists. Before I hand you over to Sergio, I'd like to draw your attention to this slide, which contains our cautionary statement regarding forward-looking statements. Now I'll hand over to Sergio.

Thanks, Martin, and thank you all for joining us. For those who follow us regularly, Caroline Stewart is currently on maternity leave, looking after her new baby boy, George. The momentum that we generated during the first 9 months of the year continued into the fourth quarter. Our performance in Q4 was solid amid continued market volatility and lower client activity towards the end of the quarter. Our business divisions contributed to the strong fourth quarter despite some seasonal headwinds and one-off items. For the fourth quarter, we reported a net profit attributable to shareholders of CHF 917 million, diluted earnings per share of CHF 0.24 and net new money inflows of over CHF 10 billion into our Wealth Management businesses. As Tom will cover the fourth quarter results in detail, I'll focus on the full year. 2013 was one of the most important years in the 151-year history of UBS as it was the first full year in which we implemented our -- and executed our accelerated strategy. Thanks to the dedication of our employees, the trust and confidence of our clients and the support of our shareholders, we made excellent progress in transforming UBS. At this time last year, I say that I -- we would adapt our business to better serve clients, reduce risk, deliver more sustainable performance and enhance shareholder returns. I'm pleased to report that 2013 -- in 2013, we accomplished all of these goals. As we expected and indicated throughout the year, while 2013 was positive in terms of financial market performance, the year was not without challenges. Turbulent macroeconomic conditions and unresolved geopolitical and fiscal issues all impacted client confidence. In addition, divergence across regulatory frameworks created uncertainty for our industry. We also addressed and resolved various issues, which required and will continue…

[Operator Instructions]

Yes. I'm sorry, we had some technical problems. I will not repeat my remarks. We will post the script of my remarks so -- for your information. And let me hand over to Tom so that he will cover the Q4 results, and I'm sure we will have plenty of time in the Q&A session to go through more details. Thank you. Tom?

Okay. Thank you, Sergio. Good morning, everyone. As usual, my commentary will reference adjusted results unless otherwise stated. This quarter, we excluded an own credit loss of CHF 94 million, CHF 61 million in gains on sales of real estate, CHF 75 million in costs related to the buyback of UBS debt, and net restructuring charges of CHF 198 million. Our performance in Q4 was solid, delivering an IFRS net profit attributable to shareholders of CHF 917 million amid continued low client activity, partly due to seasonal factors. Our fully applied CET1 ratio improved nearly a full percentage point to 12.8% as the exercise of the StabFund option, reductions in market and credit RWA and the contribution from our fourth quarter net profits more than offset the impact of the incremental operational risk RWA. During the fourth quarter of 2013 and January of 2014, UBS and FINMA reviewed the temporary operational risk-related RWA add-on that became effective on 1 October, 2013. We mutually agree that effective at year end, a supplemental analysis would be used to calculate the incremental operational risk capital required to be held for litigation, regulatory and similar matters and other contingent liabilities. The incremental RWA calculated based upon the supplemental analysis has replaced the temporary operational risk RWA add-on. These RWA were CHF 22.5 billion at year end, approximately CHF 5 billion less than the incremental RWA determined under the previously disclosed 50% operational risk add-on. Further developments in and the ultimate elimination of the incremental RWA attributable to the supplemental analysis will depend on the provisions charged to earnings for litigation, regulatory and similar matters and other contingent liabilities, and on developments in these matters, including, but not limited to, settlements of and outcomes in the matters disclosed in the litigation note of our financial…

[Operator Instructions] First question, from Mr. Kinner Lakhani from Citigroup.

So I've got 3 questions. Firstly, I just wanted to check on the DTAs, what tax utilization we've seen in 2013 and if you could kindly remind me of the numbers for 2012. Secondly, on the Wealth Management business, we're starting to see some movement in the kind of 4- to 5-year end U.S. dollar yield curve. I think it moved up about 60 to 90 basis points. So I'm starting to wonder at what stage you can see any redeployment in terms of your treasury, certainly securities yield for a couple of U.S. banks have started to increase in Q4. And certainly, just on the Basel proposal on leverage and how you think that might impact the way you look at leverage going forward.

Thanks, Kinner. So on the DTA question first that you asked, one of the things when you look at our DTA reevaluation process that we go through each year, we have a conservative view in terms of the way that we assess the value of those DTAs. I'm pretty much looking at 5 years' worth of cash flows that would support the balance of the DTAs that we carry. So if you think about utilization versus the write-ups, you're roughly rolling, year-after-year, the write-up versus what was utilized in the previous year. And if you'd like to go back a little bit further, we can catch up with you after the call to show you that. On your second question on -- within Wealth Management, have we seen -- with some of the backups in yields, is there the opportunity for us to redeploy our -- by extending some duration in the portfolio. We run our treasury framework within a set of existing -- set of existing risk limits. And we, in this framework, have not been extending duration. We still look at the trade-off between what happens to shareholders' equity in the event of a rising rate environment to be a nonoptimal choice regarding extension or duration at this point in time. So we're rolling within our existing framework. And that's in line with our views on the -- on what we've seen in terms of interest rates. If you look forward a bit, we're beginning to see, based on some of those facets, looking at our replicating portfolio income over the course of the next few quarters, we could begin to see that bottoming out in some areas. But when you look at our investment of equity portfolio, which is a longer duration portfolio, it's still a couple of years out before we see a bottoming as long as implied forwards stay in place.

Yes, thank you. On leverage ratio, I think that at this stage, we are fully concentrated on continuing to execute and stay ahead of the curve in the current regulatory requirements. I think that we are not speculating on what the outcome will be of all these discussions. I do not expect Switzerland to be well above -- way above any framework that would be out there, so -- but if that should be the case, if you can see from Chart 28, we will be able just by implementing our reduction of balance sheet and ensuring our loss-absorbing capital to add another 100 to 140 basis points. This do not include any retained earnings. Should there be a higher requirement, I think that the real solution will be to reprice, and that cost will be passed to the real economy. So from our standpoint our view in terms of strategic decisions about our business mix, we are very clear that this is the one model that makes sense for us, and any adaptation will not come by exiting businesses but rather by repricing.

And then, Kinner, just on the [indiscernible] so your question refer to the latest Basel proposals or the combination of the old Basel proposal and then the new Basel proposal. If you look at where those -- where some of the most penalizing decisions were made, that impacts areas of the business that are in our Non-core and Legacy Portfolio, so the big area that we're running down. So our view is based on what we see. Even if FINMA were to adopt all of the changes exactly as they've been framed out, we have no worse than a 20-basis-point headwind in the leverage ratio.

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

I had 2 questions. First, in terms of your ROE targets, I noticed in your report that you had subtly changed the language to be quite a little bit more constructive about potentially hitting 15% in 2015, and I was just wondering if you could maybe share some of your thoughts behind that. And number two, Tom, you gave us some useful disclosure about cost-cutting and efficiency programs in the core business. But as I read it, not very much on -- from -- on the Non-core, and I was just wondering if you all could share some of your plans about how you're going to squeeze that CHF 3.3 billion down and over what sort of time period we could -- maybe could see a step reduction in the Corporate Center cost as well.

Okay. Thanks, Huw Van. On the ROE target, just one thing, I mean, we still have the target of 15% in 2015, and we will certainly focus on trying to achieve that. But the point that we've made, which is the same as we've made it last quarter to the extent that there are incremental RWAs that we haven't planned on associated with operational risk that, that could push out the achievement of that target to 2016 or beyond. But our ambition is still, obviously, as you know, with all of our targets, to work hard towards achieving it. In terms of the cost-cutting programs and the time to achieving that, I think it's useful to place this into context. We've made the achievement of the CHF 2.2 billion in gross cost savings in an environment of increasing regulatory requirements, increasing regulatory compliance, changes in structure, a lot of work being done there. So there's a lot of increased spend that actually is a headwind to the cost savings. In terms of looking at the Non-core portfolio, you're exactly focusing in on one of the areas that we are, which is, at which point do we get to that step function in the Non-core and Legacy cost structure? It looks like you've got a run rate of about CHF 250 million, CHF 0.25 billion a year, and we've reduced line items by 44% year-over-year. And yet, we've had a very sticky cost base there. So one of the things we're working on with the team in Non-core and Legacy is taking a look at, are there certain areas, if we're focusing in on reducing LRD or focusing in on RWA, are there certain ways for us to package items together in a way that would allow us to reduce infrastructure costs as part of that? And so that's part of that -- when we're starting to evaluate where we have a preference to move, that's getting factored into that assessment. And I would say I think that that's more likely where we are in the portfolio versus where we were at the start of last year. Overall, if you look at the achievement of cost savings, a lot of these things have transitional time frames to adjust. So I think over the course of '14 and '15 and then bleeding into '16, we'll see the cost base coming out on the targets that we've set.

Next question, from Mr. Andrew Lim from Societe Generale.

First of all, on the Wealth Management division, I appreciate -- you were saying that seasonality is partially a reason for higher cost, but if we look at the annual cost/income ratio, then that's gone up by about 500 basis points. So that argument doesn't really stand. I was wondering if, on the variable cost side, there's really been a step change up to reflect that. And is that the going run rate for the cost/income ratio on an annual basis going forward? And then I noticed you've guided on your effective tax rate about 20% to 25% from 30% from the 3Q stage. Is that entirely due to your more optimistic assessment of DTAs being recognized? And then just finally, on the payout ratio, that should be jacked up to 50% plus once you hit 30% core tier 1 ratio. Is that on adjusted earnings or on stated, if you could remind us?

Andrew, so on the Wealth Management question on cost, I think another thing to remember in addition to seasonal, because we had the change in the deferral schedules associated with the variable compensation for this year, it's important to note that we did have some acceleration of expenses into the fourth quarter that are not seasonal, also were just accelerated expenses into '13 that would have occurred in '14. In the fourth quarter, that was approximately CHF 35 million in Wealth Management. So that's another thing to factor into your calculations. I think the second piece on Wealth Management's beneficiary of the cost saving that we'll have in the Corporate Center as we bring down the structural costs there, so that will allow us to certainly be with -- be well within our target range. And then finally, let's not forget Wealth Management is a business that we're investing in. So we've got the combination of investing for growth in the growth markets where we see the best opportunities, APAC, emerging markets, investing in our ultra high net worth initiatives, investing in our products and services platforms, while at the same time trying to create the structural efficiency. And I think some of that slowdown that we saw in the fourth quarter exactly represents this combination of investing for the future and then taking out the structural cost in the business. So we're still comfortable with that target cost/income ratio range that we mentioned previously. Second, on tax, on the 20% to 25% versus the 30% previously, the guidance we had of '14, there are some technical issues with recognizing losses in subsidiaries under Swiss GAAP, where based on some choices that we've made, we see -- we're a little more comfortable saying that we see a structural rate of between 20% and 25%. Certainly, in '14, that matches our longer-term range of tax rates in that area. Finally, our payout ratio, we calculate the payout ratio on net profit attributable to shareholders.

Unadjusted?

Unadjusted.

The next question is from Mr. Jon Peace, Nomura.

So 2 questions, please. The first one follows on a little bit from that last one, which is when you think about your 50% dividend payout, how do you think about the spread between ordinary dividend, special dividend and buyback? And what sort of factors are you considering when you set the mix and the payout? And then the second question was just on the Investment Bank. You sort of held back on adjusting any ROE target until you'd seen it performed through good and less good markets. So are we sort of there now? And do you feel you might want to revise that potential ROE run rate going forward?

Thanks, Jon. I think that as we communicated in the past and today, we are basically reiterating that our dividend policy will be one of having a stable, predictable dividend, and then any additional capital returns would come on top of it. So we will favor our dividend policy in that respect, where you could -- regular dividend that is stable and predictable. So the mix on -- are we going to address when we reach these targets and when we are also going through the second very important element of our -- is being above 10% past [ph] the stress test. It's going to be a very important element. I'd like to remind you of that will be based on the different options that will be available and considering what is more convenient for shareholders. In respect to the Investment Bank, while we are very pleased with its performance during 2013, during all quarters in different market conditions, I think it's way too premature to talk about changing the targets. We would be and we are structurally very happy if the Investment Bank, on a sustainable manner, achieves a -- its return above the 15%. So there is no necessity for us to change that target and to try to push towards other new numbers or new -- guiding you in that respect. So I think that we are very pleased that we will continue using this benchmark as our reference point.

Next question, from Mr. Michael Helsby from Bank of America.

I've got a couple of questions, if I can. Firstly, Tom, you cautioned us on RWAs going flat [ph] at the third quarter. And I think resulted consensus, RWAs were quite a lot higher coming into Q4 than what you actually achieved. So I was just wondering if you could explain the gap between what you were thinking at Q3 and what you delivered in Q4, and whether we should then expect RWAs to start drifting up more materially from here, i.e. what's the correct baseline for us to work with? And second question, I guess, follows on really from what Jon was just asking. But clearly, you've had the -- the surprise operational risk charge, which came in Q3. You've had new conversations with the FINMA over Q4. You've reiterated quite strongly the -- your dividend target of 50% payout ratio after 13%. And in -- behind all of that, we've got all this noise going on with leverage. So I was just wondering if you could give us some color on your conversations around all this distribution that you've had with the regulator. And just to reask what Jon -- I think asked it, I don't think you answered it, if you could give us any idea on what the mix of dividends, what that stable level of dividend is from a payout perspective, I think that would be extremely helpful. And then just to add on to that on a completely different tack, clearly, in your outlook statement, you highlight in -- the tricky trading conditions that we're seeing at the moment in Q1. I was wondering, is that a reflection of the net new money performance that you've seen in Asia given the volatility? Or is that just more a broad, sort of typically UBS cautious outlook statement?

So, Michael, let me go through these in order. Starting on that -- on the RWA piece versus what we're looking at in Q3 versus the outperformance we saw in the fourth quarter, the Non-core legacy team plays [ph] the fact we were coming into what is traditionally a more seasonally slow period and things started to shut down, as you know, a bit earlier in the year, we saw very good activity in terms of reducing our exposures both on a leverage ratio basis, balance sheet basis and RWA basis through the year end. And it seems that there is strong performance. I think, they are -- I think it literally is the teams just outperformed the expectations that we had at the end of 3Q. Second, as you noted, the adjustment, the move from the temporary operational risk data onto the supplemental analysis calculation that we're doing also reduced CHF 5 billion on RWA. So, one, I do think that that's a factor. Second, I think one of the things I might have mentioned in the third quarter was we're at the 2015 RWA target of CHF 225 billion. There's a point at which, in order to absorb -- there's growing business demand from our Wealth Management businesses, our Retail & Corporate businesses. If you look where the IB is running, they were very conservative coming into the fourth quarter. So they're lighter than their limit. So there is some upward pressure that will exist on RWAs to handle business growth. So that's one of the other things I was flagging. And then finally, third, you may see the emphasis. We have a lot more to do on LRD as we continue to reduce the exposures in Core and Legacy. On the operate charge, leverage ratio, how do…

Next question from Kian Abouhossein from JPMorgan. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: First question relates to coming back to the Basel III leverage ratio. As I understand it, you just mentioned earlier, that the Basel III leverage ratio would have about 20 basis point impact relative to your Swiss calculation. So if I look at Slide 28, the CHF 3.4 billion would be about CHF 3.2 billion, is that correct? And it implies that assets under Basel III would be about CHF 1.08 billion, so just sort of under CHF 1.1 trillion, sorry, trillion not billions. Could you just confirm that this calculation is correct? And secondly, the question I have is relating your Corporate Center - Core division. Could you come or could you maybe marry slide Page 18 and slide Page 39? Because I want to understand the -- how the assets will look like by 2015 and what's actually in these assets, and marry that with Page 18 where you just gave some indication on numbers on the CHF 500 million, how the CHF 500 million will develop over time? If you could maybe repeat that because that was quite important. It was quite quick. The CHF 510 million, how the retained funding cost will change over time in your view? And I would really like to know how you've split the assets, and my feeling is a little bit you understate the assets in the IB because clearly your funding cost for the IB, and most of the funding costs will be IB-related this year [ph]. So I really try to understand what is the real economic assets that are related to the IB, i.e. IB assets transport [ph] in the Corporate Center?

Thanks a lot for those questions. So on the leverage ratio question on the 20 basis point impact, we can run through the numbers with you after the call, but it sounds roughly in-line in terms of the calculation you've done. It's a forward look on where we are after reduction in the Non-core and Legacy, so there are some adjustments maybe that you'd have to do. And you also want to factor in your assumptions on our loss observing capital issuance, both of the low trigger in the markets or the high triggers through the DCC [ph] compensation plan. On the... Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: But just to understand, the assets roughly CHF 1.1 trillion, it's -- would that be roughly right estimate after your restructuring is achieved?

You might be a touch high, but that's reasonable enough for now. I mean -- and we'll follow up with you after the call. Then on your -- you asked to marry Slides 18 and 39. I would actually marry Slides 18 and 36. The question isn't the asset side because the question is really for us, how do we adjust the funding mix. So the unsecured funding pool is an excess supply of long-term debt, long-term structured debt that we have that, when we reduced the size of the Investment Bank so dramatically under the acceleration of our strategy, we had an overhang of liabilities that we have to run down over a longer period of time, so actually, it has nothing to do with the current IB. It has everything to do with the old IB, which we put into Non-core and Legacy. The only difference is we put the assets in Non-core and Legacy, we put the liability structure into Corporate Center - Core because Group Treasury is responsible for risk managing the funding profile of the bank. So I would say that the way we're presenting the Investment Bank currently is correct for the current Investment Bank. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And can you just run through the numbers on Page 18, again? How the CHF 510 million changes?

Yes, so CHF 510 million, we said slight reduction in '14, down to about CHF 100 million, loss of CHF 115 million and roughly 0 in '16. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And just to understand, I mean, you must have -- so how much of your total assets that are in the Core because I'm a bit confused now. Now I get the impression part of the funding is related to Non-core, but you call it Core. So I'm just trying to understand how much of the Core is actually -- will remain of these assets after you finalize your restructuring?

Well, when we finalize the liability portion of the restructuring, then we retain funding costs, that will go to 0 because it's the excess long-term debt, essentially, that we no longer need because we so dramatically reduced the long-term asset demands, which used to be created from the old Investment Bank carrying highly liquid positions that we had to fund term rather than overnight. So we had excess liability term that we're running off of a -- over a period of time. And then as you know, we can do that through a mix of whichever's optimizing it. Do we just let some things roll off? Or do we engage in debt management activities like the buy back -- the buybacks that we had last year. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Great. Last question, if I may, maybe I need to follow up on that as well. But last question is on risk-weighted assets on the CHF 225 billion, you're basically 0 and you're saying you're going to be below that, but you're not being more specific. I think it's Slide 26. Could you be a little bit more specific for '14 where we should be thinking about you're going to end up? I mean, CHF 25 billion is not hugely ambitious considering you're doing such a great job on RWA reduction.

So I think let's remember a few things. First, we have things like the FINMA mortgage multiplier that took place just at the beginning of this year that puts upward pressure on RWAs. Second, as the Investment Bank sees opportunities, they're certainly not going to run as far below their limit as they currently are, so they may be buffing up a little bit higher. There's growth in Wealth Management, growth in Retail & Corporate, growth in Wealth Management Americas. Those are all upward [indiscernible] upward pressure. There's also the June countercyclical buffer increase that recently was announced by the FINMA [indiscernible] Federal Council's approval. So you got these growth effects that will be bumping up RWA. Against that, we'll be running down the Non-core and Legacy Portfolio, but as I mentioned a little bit earlier, increasingly, there may be more of an emphasis on LRD reduction rather than RWA reduction. So I think these target schedules that we have in place are the correct target schedule considering both the reductions that we need to make, but also accommodating growth up for the profitability of the business.

The next question is from Mrs. Fiona Swaffield from RBC.

Just on 2 areas. Firstly, on the cost side, sometime ago you gave a slide with all the moving parts on costs and an absolute cost target, other things being equal, of about CHF 20 billion, could you talk us through why we're only at something like CHF 2.2 billion of costs achieved? I think we were supposed to be at CHF 3.2 billion according to your Q3 '12 slides? And whether the CHF 5.4 billion growth is still your plan and just all the moving parts? And the second area is on the European offshore tax amnesty impact. I think at some point you said CHF 12 billion to CHF 30 billion of net outflows from this. Where are we in that process? Could you give us a number? And given the other tax amnesties that are happening, do you think it will be larger than that over time?

Yes, thanks for that question. We're still targeting the CHF 5.4 billion in gross savings. You're correct that the previous projection that we'd had a couple of years ago as we were looking at this was for the CHF 3.2 billion at this point in time. And we've mentioned that we're redoubling our efforts. I've also mentioned some of those headwinds that we saw, and that some in the wok [ph] are due to some of the seasonal expense, pops that you see in the fourth quarter, which will be mitigated in 1Q. Some of those are also the real costs, real increase costs of regulatory compliance, some of the legal, the non-provisioning costs associated with legal regulatory and other matters that also are headwind. But we're still focused on a CHF 5.4 billion in gross savings reduction. And then that's up against some of it could be timing of investments. On the European offshore question, yes, we still think the CHF 12 billion to CHF 30 billion range is the right range because of some of the things you mentioned. There is, as we see clients expanding their voluntary compliance with some either tax amnesties or questions about declaration of assets, our assessment of that range is still correct. I think a more meaningful number now given where we are in the process is just to realize that our 3% to 5% net new money growth target incorporates that whatever outflow we expect, whether it's the low end of that range or the higher end of that range.

Next question from Mr. Christopher Wheeler from Mediobanca.

Just a couple of questions which, I guess, at least on strategy, I suppose. The first one on Wealth Management Americas where, obviously, you're very excited about the performance there. But again, I suppose I ask of your cost, just to get my head around where you are on your targets. Clearly, one of your biggest competitors pushed up their target for their cost/income ratio, pushed it down to 78% to 76%. And I guess, given the progress that Bob's made, what is the next step here? Or should we be saying to ourselves, "We can't really compare this now with the bigger players in the market and we have look at a very different animal?" So I'd just like some comments on that, given the progress you've made there. And then on the Global Asset Management business, clearly, I've always thought that the business was probably the best bank-owned, wealth asset manager around. And I'm just wondering whether you can share anything with us that you think you're talking to? Or like about what might change? Because it does appear to me there are quite a lot of changes around the asset management industry and also, in particular, where asset managers are linked fully closely with wealth managers.

So Chris, I'll take the first one. I think Sergio will take the second one. Yes, on Wealth Management Americas, as you mentioned, we are extremely happy to think -- you look back a couple of years ago, and think this business, to think that it would have CHF 1 trillion in invested assets, CHF 1 billion in pretax and advisors with a productivity of a CHF 1 million a piece is really quite an achievement. And the question, "Well, where are we going next? And how does that compare to others?" Let's not forget those -- the larger firms in the U.S. that are going to play the scale game are always going to have a slight advantage in terms of cost/income ratio versus our targets. So number one, that's just a structural choice that you make in the strategy. In our view, we believe we'll earn a very attractive return on the business based on not trying to play the scale game, playing a very focused strategy and also that focused strategy on high net worth, ultra-high net worth aligns with what our strategy is in Wealth Management globally. So in our case, we think that's the right way to marry this and not try to push into a more core affluent or affluent business to try to change the scale profile.

Tom, do you think -- I mean, do you think that this -- the shape of your business also means that when markets turn down again, that actually you'll outperform the competitors? Is that part of the view you have?

Our view that this is the strategy that Wealth Management Americas has is very robust through a cycle. One of the key things you can get hung with in a turn of a cycle, if you're playing a scale game, is excess real estate or you have a younger training classes of advisors that have -- that struggle during the downturns of markets. So we think focusing on experienced advisors, wealthy clients, manage our cost base well, manage the business for productivity is the right approach and it'll yield a -- on a risk-adjusted basis, a better profit profile than for us to play a scale game.

So on asset management, I think that, as you know, we have a strong platform and in terms of global footprint, expertise across different businesses and asset classes, also in passive but also in outside capabilities. So I think this is a pretty good base. We have communicated clearly in the past that asset managers has an important role to play within our business mix. It's a low capital absorbing capital, generating very good fees. Ueli will take on -- Ueli Koerner will take some on John legacy, also in respect of assessing the strategic movements we want to do in this business. He will go through reassessment of this in the next few months. And as soon as we have something important or meaningful to communicate, we will do so. This is not going to be before the end of the second quarter for sure. But for sure, we are focusing on how to better leverage these assets. As we now concluded the journey of restructuring many other parts of the bank, we will also look at how to do -- further enhance and take out value of our asset management business.

Next question from Mr. Jeremy (sic) [Jernej] Omahen, Goldman Sachs.

I have a couple of very short questions and then maybe a slightly broader question. So the first one is for you, Tom. I was just wondering, I thought that this was going to be the quarter where UBS releases the standardized risk-weighted asset number for the first time, but I couldn't find it. I was wondering whether that is still the case? And if not, when do you plan to release that? Then I have a question on Page 34 on your -- Page 34, yes, on your deferred tax assets. And I think we all obviously knew that you have plenty of DTAs in the U.S. and some left in the U.K., but I was surprised by the deferred tax assets in Switzerland. Can you just remind me which part of the Swiss business you made losses in for those DTAs to be there? Then I have a question on, very briefly again, on the issue of subsidiarization, geographic subsidiarization. I think in your last quarterly report, you made a reference that you might be thinking of establishing subsidiaries, particularly in Switzerland, and bundling some of your businesses in there. And I was wondering, a, is that still the plan? Do you plan to proceed with this; and, b, what, if the answer is, yes, what impact on the profitability of the non-Swiss businesses would this have, i.e. would you have to start charging them market rates for liquidity or not? And then as a final question, which I'm really hoping to get some more color on. UBS, I think before probably up until 2010, 2011, was very vocal, together with Crédit Suisse, on the topic of collaboration revenues and the synergy between running an investment bank and running a private bank at the same time. Now UBS is alone in executing, successfully executing, very deep cuts to its Investment Banking business. And I was just wondering whether you have a gauge or whether you have a sense as to what the revenue impact on the private bank has been due to the sharp downsizing? Or I guess I could ask this question differently: Do you think there is an impact at all? And if the answer to that, obviously is, no, then I guess the follow-on question would be, whether these collaboration revenues are something that we've overemphasized in the past?

Okay, thanks, Jernej, for the questions. I think there are 2 things in terms of the question on publishing information on standardized methodologies. What we've said in the past is that our view is that some of the most valuable things that are done are by the BCBS where there are standardized portfolios given out to a number of banks. Those are -- the data has been crunched by the banks, sent back to BCBS, validated and reviewed by them and then published anonymously. And then that allows a data collection for boards to discuss with their management and regulators to discuss with management banks that understand how some of the differences that exists. And based on everything that we've seen, on the market-risk standpoint, we showed up in the middle of the pack. On a credit-risk standpoint, from what we saw, we showed up to be slightly more conservative than the median and to the extent you had outliers, we've seen those banks have discussions with the regulators and their boards. There's some additional disclosure that we've added that may help you on that on Pages 77 and 78 of our report that showed a breakdown of RWA by type and also show some information on standardized versus advanced approach that may be helpful. But the full just data dumped to the market of the standardized calculation, we think, is actually pretty misleading information because it's got to be taken into context, and we think the BCBS is doing good work on that topic. On the DTA question you asked on Slide 34. It's not losses in Switzerland, it's losses in subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries that have been booked into the parent bank branch in Switzerland and create tax losses at Switzerland. So it's not that we had a loss in a Swiss business. Subsidiarization, we're still on track, exactly what we said last quarter is what we intend to do, and we're in the process of implementing that. And then the fourth question, I think Sergio can answer.

Yes, well, when we look at our strategy, I mean, 2 years ago, we started really to grow and go down and understand clearly what kind of businesses within the IB where businesses were, a, were critical in order to help and sustain our value-added proposition in Wealth Management and in Corporate in Switzerland, very important; and the second element was really the one driven by what are we good at? Where can we compete globally and give our best services? First of all, to corporate and institutional clients, which is the prerequisite for us to be strong in supporting Wealth Management. So that was basically the journey in the last 2 years. A year ago, we accelerated that focus and what we do today in the Investment Bank is basically what our Wealth Management needs in order to support these businesses. But the fractional -- there are some areas in the credit businesses that we are now using more open architecture and other providers, but in essence, that equation hasn't changed. Actually, by focusing the IB in looking at Wealth Management as its best clients, we're really enhancing even more the spirit of collaboration and cross utilization, which is naturally very, very compelling and important across-the-board, in Asia, particularly. But also, I would underline how it's important in Switzerland and more and more in the U.S. and across the globe. So nothing has changed. If anything has changed it's that we have even more focus on those aspects.

That's very helpful. If I may, Tom, just follow up on one technical aspect. So if UBS goes down the route of geographic subsidiarization, so if you have a legal entity Switzerland, legal entity U.K., legal entity U.S., right, will you have -- will UBS have to lend to the non-Swiss entities at market rates? Because I think that's important because it would mean if you have to charge your Investment Bank at least a market rate, i.e. an arm's-length rate for the liquidity, I guess that would have a substantial impact on the profitability of those legal entities. Maybe I'm completely off, but...

Yes, but when you look at the subsidiarization effect, we have Wealth Management businesses around the world. And if you look then at the legal entity structures which we'll be required to by regulators, running liquidity coverage ratios by entity, net stable funding ratio calculations by entity, so overall, there will be an effect. But if you look at the development of our onshore businesses in Wealth Management, one of the reasons why that strategy, the combined strategy of Wealth Management, the very focused Investment Bank, makes a lot of sense. We believe that we're in a position and all of our targets to take into account the subsidiarization effects that we expect to see. So you're correct, there will be some factors, but it's not like there's this central place that we'll have to have funding and it will look at something [ph] of the costs. There will be funding within entities. And also, when you look at the profile of those entities, some of those entities will have attractive credit rates.

Yes, also, it's very important to understand that all this subsidiarization exercise is meant to facilitate a recovery and resolution process and not that we plan to run on a stand-alone basis each legal entity. That's not the spirit of how we and regulators in general look at this dynamic. So all these issues -- what we want to do is to make the system and resolvability and -- of any part of our group much more concrete and feasible, but clearly, keep all the advantages of being a united group.

And I think, Jernej, if you look at what some of the large U.S. banks have already done around this, I think it shows you, actually, the possibilities as some of them have commented on the possibilities of the combined operations and some of the advantages of that.

Next question from Mr. Stefan Stalmann, Autonomous Research.

I have just 2 questions left, please. The first one, what kind of interest rate environment do you assume to get to 15% ROE eventually? Or maybe worded in a slightly different way, do you think you would get to 15% ROE with no change in rates from where they are currently? And the second question is, you have not yet applied the value adjustments to your accounts. Could you, in the interim, guide what kind of amount of uncollateralized derivatives you currently have that would be impacted by these value adjustments?

Stefan, thanks. If I understand your first question correctly it's, how much harder is it to reach our ROE target if there isn't -- if you don't get the change in -- upward move in interest rates that exist in the implied forward curve? That would certainly be a drag on us and could hamper that. So how much could that push that out? That could push it out potentially another year, if we saw completely stable rates, and no move on implied forwards. But increasingly, when you get to a more normalized environment, we believe those moves will come through perhaps faster than some people think. On the FDA question, we do have a note in the -- in our financial statement, referring to Note 1, where we comment that, yes, we are currently in the process of exploring FDA adoption and that's possible in 2014. But one of the things I'd note on the uncollateralized derivatives side, that exposure is almost entirely in our Non-core and Legacy book, which is the book that we're running down. So the ultimate impact of that will depend on how much you run down Non-core and Legacy, and we believe the impact is a manageable number in our P&L.

Next question from Mr. Jeremy Sigee from Barclays.

It's really follow-ups at this point, actually. Just a couple on the flows, actually, where you used the Slide 9 where you split your flows by region. Firstly, could you just talk about Europe, what you expect from Germany, France, Italy in the coming quarters? I see you've gone from modest inflows to outflows again, and just how that plays out with changes underway in tax amnesties, et cetera? Also, secondly on that slide, emerging market flows collapsed in 3Q, 4Q, sort of suggests you're getting the negatives from the emerging market wobbles rather than the flight to quality positives that you sometimes get in those kind of circumstances. I just wondered if you could talk a bit more about that? And the finally, on the Investment Bank, headcount down a couple of percent in the quarter, but obviously the bonus pool being up is quite an important sign of the success and stabilization of that franchise now. And I just wondered where you see headcount going from here going forward in the IB?

Well, let me take in order -- in reverse order your questions. I think that in terms of headcount and the restructuring of the business, the job has been done as of January 1 of last year. We have been making some fine-tuning in execution of that strategy during the year. I don't see any meaningful change in our strategy in respect to headcount and resources involve [ph] on personnel and, also, on financial resources, balance sheet or risk-weighted assets. I think that the compensation dynamics at group level were clearly addressing the fact that in the last -- over the last couple of years, tools segments of the bank and other segments in Corporate Center were penalized by the actions we took on variable compensation will now normalize the situation based on market conditions [indiscernible] in the competitive landscape and our performance. So we feel that this is a good baseline on how to judge our business going forward. You also raised the issue of the outflows in Europe. Look, this process, I think, in Germany, we do expect that the regularization, the voluntary compliance program still is rolling out, and we do expect the German clients -- we do expect our German clients to complete that regularization by the end of this year. So you won't see a drastic one-off event into any of the future quarters. In France, it's ongoing. We'll also take some times. In Italy, the government has just announced a voluntary compliance program. That has still to be ratified by the parliament in Italy and is still subject to potential discussion or negotiations. So it's unlikely that you will see a major event in the next 3, 6, 9 months that leads into a huge volatility. But as Tom pointed out before, even though that, and you can see the trend, our effort is really to manage towards increasing share of wallet with those clients to offset the outgoing assets, gaining new clients and gain market share. And that's the reason why we are confident that we can stick to our overall 3% to 5% growth in net new money, which includes those outflows. And I think I'm missing the second.

The exposure.

On the flows, specifically in Wealth Management, just that same slide, Slide 9 it shows a collapse in flows in 3Q, 4Q. So as I was trying to say, it looks like you're getting the negatives of the emerging market wobble. In the past, it's sometimes been a positive, you get a flight to quality effect, and it doesn't seem to be happening at the moment?

Right, look, I mean, when you look at emerging market dynamics, I think that in broader terms, if you mix that one with the Asian numbers, so as you would probably have seen in similar comparisons, the numbers doesn't look so bad. It is true that when you look at certain aspect of x Asia, the dynamics there in terms of growth -- sorry, wealth generation monetization of wealth are changing as a function of what we see in those economies. So although the secular opportunities and -- in those markets do remain intact, the short-term headwinds are clearly there.

Many thanks. I guess, we now conclude the call for analysts and investors, and we are opening up for questions for media.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Q&A...