Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the first quarter 2014 earnings teleconference. [Operator Instructions] And as a reminder, today's conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Eric Durant. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Cynthia. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. Representing Prudential on today's call are John Strangfeld, CEO; Mark Grier, Vice Chairman; Charlie Lowrey, Head of International Businesses; Steve Pelletier, Head of Domestic Businesses; Rob Falzon, Chief Financial Officer; Rob Axel, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer. In order to help you to understand Prudential Financial, we will make some forward-looking statements in the following presentation. It is possible that actual results may differ materially from the predictions we make today. Additional information regarding factors that could cause such a difference appears in the section titled Forward-Looking Statements and Non-GAAP Measures of our earnings press release for the first quarter of 2014, which can be found on our website at www.investor.prudential.com. In addition, this presentation may include references to adjusted operating income or to earnings per share or EPS or return on equity or ROE, which are determined based on adjusted operating income. Adjusted operating income is a non-GAAP measure of performance of our Financial Services businesses that excludes certain items. Adjusted operating income is not a substitute for income determined in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP and the excluded items are important to an understanding of our overall results of operations. For a reconciliation of adjusted operating income to the comparable GAAP measure, please see our earnings press release on our website. Additional historical information relating to the company's financial performance is also located on our website. I'll forego the repeat. On to John.

Thank you, Eric. Good morning, everyone, thanks for joining us. And we'd like to acknowledge also, today, we have Charlie Lowrey in a different role as Head of International and we welcome Steve Pelletier in his new role as head of the U.S. Before I hand it over Mark and Rob for more specifics, I'd like to kick things off with some macro comments. We are very pleased with the results for the first quarter and we believe we're off to a good start to achieve our goals for 2014. Our annuities, retirement and asset management businesses have benefited from sustained growth and account values of asset under management. Returns and risk profile in our annuities operation continue to migrate towards our objectives for this business, as the sustained period of favorable equity markets and a gradual shift in the composition of our block have driven improvement. We're very comfortable with the risk profile as it stands today and we're also comfortable with the expected profitability of the products that we are selling. Our Retirement business had its best ever quarter. Outstanding results were driven by improved investment spreads in both Institutional Investment Products and Full Service retirement, even excluding a higher than expected contribution from non-component investments. Higher fees also contributed to earnings growth this quarter. And although we recorded no pension risk transfer transactions this quarter, we continue to believe that PRT is an attractive opportunity that will develop further over time. Asset Management achieved its growth in earnings entirely on the strength of growth in asset management fees, reflecting growth in assets under management. Other related revenue was down slightly from a year ago and contributed less than 20% of adjusted operating income for the quarter. So as assets management earnings have increased, we believe it's quality…

Thanks, John. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening. Thank you for joining us on the call today. I'll take you through our results for the quarter and then I'll turn it over to Rob Falzon, who will cover our capital and liquidity picture. So starting with Slide 2, I'll begin with an overview of our financial results for the quarter. On a reported basis, common stock earnings per share amounted to $2.40 for the first quarter based on after-tax adjusted operating income of the Financial Services businesses. This compares to EPS of $2.27 a year ago. After adjusting for market-driven and discrete items in both the current quarter and the year-ago quarter, EPS was up 16% amounting to $2.46 this quarter compared to $2.12. On that basis, pretax earnings for our operating divisions increased by 17% for the quarter. This is largely the result of 3 things. First, a greater contribution from investment results, reflecting exceptionally strong current quarter returns from non-coupon investments, including our Fosun venture, as well as actions we've taken to reposition the portfolios for our pension risk transfer business and Prudential retirement. Secondly, higher fees driven by growth and account values and assets under management in our annuities, retirement and asset management businesses. And third, continued growth of our International Insurance business, which also benefited from lower expenses. On a GAAP basis, we reported net income of $1.2 billion for the current quarter compared to a loss of $735 million a year ago. The loss in the year-ago quarter reflected the accounting impact of foreign currency remeasurement of non-yen liabilities on the books of our Japanese insurance company driven by a weakening yen. In the current quarter, the impact from this remeasurement was less significant because the yen was relatively stable in relation to the…

Thanks, Mark. I'll provide an update on some key items under the heading of financial strength and flexibility with just a few slides. Starting on Slide 24. We continue to manage our insurance companies to levels of capital that we believe are consistent with AA standards. As of year end, Prudential Insurance reported an RBC ratio of 456%, with total adjusted capital, or TAC, of $13.9 billion. While we don't perform a quarterly bottoms up RBC calculation, we estimate that our RBC ratio as of the end of the first quarter has not changed materially since year end and is above our 400% target, which we believe gives us a cushion against our AA objective. In Japan, Prudential of Japan and Gibraltar Life reported strong solvency margins of 772% and 937%, respectively, as of their most recent reporting date, which is December 31, 2013. These are comfortably above their 600% to 700% targets. Our Japanese insurance companies will soon report solvency margins as of their March 31 fiscal year end. And while the calculations are not yet final, we expect them to continue to be in a strong position relative to their targets. Looking now at the overall capital position for the Financial Services businesses on Slide 25. We calculate our on-balance sheet capital capacity by comparing the statutory capital position of Prudential Insurance to our 400% RBC ratio target and then add capital capacity held at the parent company and at other subsidiaries. As of year end, we estimated that our on balance sheet capital capacity was about $3.5 billion, including about $1.5 billion that we consider readily deployable. Taking into account our results for the quarter, our quarterly common stock dividend of $0.53 a share or about $250 million and share repurchases also of about $250 million, we estimate our on balance sheet capital capacity was over $4 billion at the end of the first quarter. A portion of that we consider to be readily deployable has not changed materially since year end. Turning to the cash position of the parent company. Cash and short-term investments net of outstanding commercial paper amounted to $3.2 billion as of the end of the first quarter. The cash in excess of our targeted $1.3 billion liquidity cushion is available to repay maturing debt, to fund operating needs and to redeploy over time. Now I'll turn it back over to John.

Great. Thank you, Rob. Thank you, Mark. And with that, we'd like to open it up to questions.

[Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from the line of Chris Giovanni with Goldman Sachs.

A question for Mark. Met on their call last week talked about regulators getting a better understanding of separate accounts and that really regardless of what happens with the Collins Amendment, it's possible for them to either not assess capital charges or at least not assess significant capital charges for the nonguaranteed portion of separate accounts. So wondering if that's the message or sense that you guys are getting as well.

Yes, it is. And I think I'd make an even broader statement about the insight that regulators are gaining into the whole solvency model and capital world of insurance. The issue around nonguaranteed separate accounts is specific and relates to the line of sight to the capital of the company, and I think that point, as well as others, are being discussed constructively and often.

Okay. And then a question for John. You've talked about the 13% to 14% ROE target is sort of, I believe, sort of a through-the-cycle return, so there will be periods where you're clearly above that, as we've seen more recently in periods that are below. But how should we think about -- what's a reasonable sort of standard deviation from this average?

Well, I guess the way I look at it, Chris, is it's less about an average and more about something we think we can achieve through the cycle absent a tail event. So maybe just to put in a little more context, we've talked about this '13 and '14 aspiration since 2010. Obviously, it's no longer a goal, it's reality. And in fact, our run rate in '13, and again in Q1 of '14, is better than that. And we think this is something -- we don't think of it as an average, we'd rather think it was something we think we can achieve through the cycle absent, as I say, tail-type events. And by maintaining that through the cycle represents superior performance relative to peers and relative, I think, to most balance-sheet-oriented financial institution. So we're sticking with the '13, '14. We think its superior, it's not a once-and-done phenomena, it's a focus on sustainability over time. And that's how we're thinking about it.

Okay. And then you had some leadership changes take place post Ed's departure earlier in April. Just wondering if there's anything we should take from that in terms of potential changes in strategy or if Charlie or Steve if they've kind of assessed their businesses, if there's any incremental changes?

Well, I'll just offer 1 or 2 macro comments on this. This is very classic Pru of carefully thought through, orderly change, planned over a long period of time. So you've seen nothing in this transition that's reflective of anything other than the intense focus that we always apply to talent management and to success in planning. And we're feeling very, very good about these transitions. Clearly, any new leader in a role takes a fresh look at things and that's the way to think about it. But we're feeling very good about where we are and where we're headed in the I think quality, continuity and stability in the leadership team.

Our next question comes from the line of Nigel Dally with Morgan Stanley.

First question on Gibraltar. You've done a great job of improving the consultant productivity. So are they still seeing those relatively large declines in the number of consultants down another 5%, 6% on a sequential basis? I know you mentioned in your comments that you expect that number to eventually stabilize and then grow. Hoping we can get some color on when that's likely to happen.

Sure, Nigel. This is Charlie. So let's just -- let me take that in a couple of different ways. So the Life Consultant account was down about 14% year-over-year. And that really does reflect, as you said, a continuation of the active management of the Star and Edison sales force, enforcing validation requirements and doing a variety of other things. But a couple of comments on that: The second derivative of the decrease is derivating, in other words, is decreasing. In other words, the rate of decrease is decreasing. So this quarter, we went down by 14%. Last quarter, we went down by 18% and the quarter before that, we went down by 20%. So it is coming down. Now in terms of productivity, we're back up to where we were before we acquired Star and Edison. So we're back up at sort of 3.5 policies per month level. So productivity is where it was. And so I think what you'll see going forward, what you'd expect is the percent change in sales will reflect now the percent change in the Life Consultant account going forward. And that's exactly what we see is happening and that's exactly what happened with TOA. So if we go back about a decade to TOA, TOA took 4 years to actively manage their sales force to where wanted it to be. And the sales force was reduced over that period of time by roughly 40%, rough justice. Now we're 3 years into the Star/Edison process and we're down rough justice, about 30%. So we have a ways to go. We're entering into the bottoming-out phase. But I think you'll probably see that later this year or the beginning of next year, somewhere in that time frame, as we finalize the process. But this is a sort of textbook -- sort of what we did with TOA and we're doing exactly the same thing here.

Great. That's helpful. Second question on group insurance, being that the repricing tools several years but results don't seem to be getting better. Is perhaps the price increases that you've been pushing through have been insufficient and that you need another round of rate hike beyond your original expectations or is it more just a matter of timing that the actions that you take are just going to take more time to be evident in the results?

Nigel, this is Steve Pelletier. The results in group insurance this quarter are driven purely in the disability business and purely through claim severity in the disability business. When we look at what we've done over the past couple of years and are continuing to do in the business in terms of repricing, in terms of lapsation of unprofitable business, in terms of claims incidents, and in terms of effectiveness of managing claims, we don't see any reason to lack confidence in the path of recovery that the business is on. Having said that, as Charlie has emphasized in the past, that path is not going to be a linear one. It can have ups and downs as we saw this quarter in relation to claim severity. But we think that the price increases we've engineered in the past couple of years and that we continue to increase are at the appropriate level.

Our next question comes from the line of Jimmy Bhullar with JPMorgan. Jamminder S. Bhullar - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: So first, a question on the stable value business. Your sales flows slowed down there. And you mentioned a little bit, you're seeing a little bit more competition. So just if you could elaborate on that and whether you're seeing competition from public companies, mutuals? And then secondly, on FSA, very strong flows during the large case, I think, about $2.6 billion in there. But maybe talk about competitive trends in that market as well and what your view is in terms of pricing conditions in the Full Service market.

Jimmy, Steve again. I will take your questions in kind of reverse order, the points you mentioned. First of all, Full Service. No, we don't see any change in our view of competitive dynamics in the marketplace or in our business strategy in relation to those dynamics. We're obviously pleased by the first quarter sales and flows. However, I'd emphasize that, that contained one very large case, a $2.6 billion case, a public entity on the West Coast. We said before that we're selective in relation to these large cases. Selective does not mean we can't compete, though, when we like the characteristics of the case as we did in this instance. But I don't think that's anything that we can count on going forward. As Mark said, they are inherently lumpy. In IOSD, you are seeing a slowing of sales, and that's fully expected on our part. Our sales performance the last few years in the business reflected our stepping into a void in the marketplace. And now the competitive circumstances are changing. Having grown the book the way we did, we are now facing concentration limits at some counterparties as we would expect to. Also, as you mentioned, new competition, that is coming, Jimmy, both from banks and insurance companies. So I'd emphasize that there's a range of new competitors in that market. As of right now, we have not seen the entrance of that new competition and new capacity depress margins in the market. But obviously, we've got our eyes closely on that. We're not -- it would stand to reason that increased competition could do that, as we've done so to date, but we got our eyes on it. Jamminder S. Bhullar - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And then maybe one more on the Individual Life business. Hartford had showed a decent amount of universal life with secondary guarantees. You obviously pulled their product off the shelf and you've incorporated some of the features of their product into yours. How comfortable -- as you looked at the Hartford block more, how comfortable are you with the pricing in that -- in the block that you acquired?

We feel solid about the block of business in terms of its profitability, in terms of its risk profile. The pulling of the product, of the Hartford product from the shelf, is simply reflective of our integrated product design strategy and it just reflects further integration progress following the acquisition.

Our next question comes from the line of Tom Gallagher with Crédit Suisse. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: One quick follow-up on the Group business. The -- so just looking at the earnings trajectory and so the loss ratio on Group Disability, do you need to take another round of rate and repricing for that group disability block?

We continue to repress the business as it comes up for repricing, Tom. So that's not a course of activity that ends. We are about 60% of the way through repricing the block of business that was on the books a few years year ago. We expect to make significant further progress regarding the remainder at the beginning of next year. Most of this business reprices at January 1 of the year and then the remainder would occur during the course of 2015. So this is not a process we're done with but it's a process that has been progressing as expected. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay. And then one for Mark. The -- any thoughts on the dual bills that are running through the house and the senate, focused on the Collins Amendment and whether that's significant from your end?

Well, there's certainly a qualitative significance in the broad-based support for clarifying the original Collins Amendment as it relates to capital standards for non-bank SIFIs. And I think there's a compelling message in the fact that a number of legislators on both sides of the aisle and in both houses of Congress have stepped up to endorse or co-sponsor these bills. I'm not going to comment on the prospects for passing the bills because that's deeper water that I'm willing to swim in. I'm not quite sure how all that stuff is going to work. But I think there's a very clear message in the formulation and the positioning of these bills in both parties and in both houses. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And, Mark, just a follow-up on that. Is it important from your end that this does get passed and clarified in terms of the ultimate rule setting? Or do you believe that it -- even without these getting past that, ultimately, it's going to get to a place that you all would be comfortable with?

I do believe that this will ultimately get to a place that we'll be comfortable with. The Collins Amendment, as originally drafted or passed and as interpreted by some, is actually an obstacle to implementing Dodd-Frank and achieving the objectives of the bill relative to stability and financial strength. And I think that's clear, and I think we will, ultimately, find a solution either through this kind of legislation or through a more direct administrative solution. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay. And then just one follow-up on retirement. The margins there were quite strong even after stripping out what you've defined as favorable investment income. Can you describe what's really driving it? I saw crediting rest rates were down by a fair amount, is it really just spreads?

Spreads are a contribution to it, but also, I mean, I think you're seeing when you take a look at, for example, the Full Service part of the business, you look at our ability to generate greater contributions through a lot of the work we've done in that part of the business. Greater implementation of auto enrollment activities, auto escalation features in plans. So that has helped as well. In the meantime, withdrawals stay at a relatively consistent percentage of unplanned balances. So that has also been a contributor. Thomas G. Gallagher - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: So just operating leverage in the business continues to flow through, is that a fair description?

I think that would be a good characterization of it, yes.

Our next question comes from the line of Suneet Kamath with UBS.

Just a question to start on annuities and the ROA. If I look at Slide 7 of your deck, it looks like the year-over-year improvement in ROAs was pretty significant, from 87 basis points to I guess 105. And I know on the last call, we talked about some of the dynamics or drivers that are causing this to occur. But I just want to get a sense, order of magnitude. How much of that improvement would you say is related to the whole K factor adjustments that you make on a quarterly basis?

I'd say a very significant portion of this today. This is Steve. When you look at the scale of economies in the business, those remain in place, the business has effectively managed expenses from a general administrative standpoint. But the lowering of the K factor has been significantly driven by outsized equity market performance of certainly the past year, but over the past few years. As you all know, our projections for equity market group are more modest. And so then it would only stand to reason that if markets performed in line with those expectations, any further expansion of the ROA would be at a much more modest rate.

Got it. And then I guess -- I don't know if we can do this externally, but if you wanted to look at this annuity ROA maybe on a statutory basis, where I'm guessing that we would eliminate a lot of the noise around DAC and K factors. What would that improvement sort of look like, order of magnitude?

We won't be able to address that today, Suneet. I haven't even looked at that. We report annuity results on a GAAP basis and we've got multiple legal entities here. It would be difficult to do in a way that would be very meaningful.

Okay. That's fair. And I guess my second question is on unbaked civvies. As we think about some of the commentary we've heard from AIG and MetLife, it sounds like both companies are spending a fair amount of time, both in terms of investments of dollars and investments of people, in terms of improving their financial systems, to be able to give the Fed what it wants in the manner in which it wants it and the time in which it wants it. And I guess we've not really heard or at least have not heard the same sort of commentary from Prudential. And I'm just kind of curious how you think your systems and everything are positioned to kind of handle what could be some sort of new stress tests if this whole non-bank civvy thing goes in a way that's similar to what -- to the direction it's been going in.

Yes, this is Mark, I'll start off and then I'll ask Rob to comment as well. I guess the beginning, starting point is that we're going through a lot of the same thing. The supervisory environment is evolving with the Federal Reserve and we're working on the same kinds of questions about reporting and interfaces and the capabilities that we need to be effectively supervised by the feds. So it's work in process for us. Let me comment briefly on stress test. We've shared with you our capital protection plan. And we go around the track on stress testing frequently here, that there will be challenges to align exactly what we do, what exactly what's expected. But we feel like that's an area in which we've refined our capabilities going back really to the beginning of the financial crisis in ways that are pretty constructive and helpful. The point of that isn't that we won't have to do some things differently but that we're coming into this with a lot of work already done around the things that we understand and also around the quality and credibility of the work we do in stress testing. The things that we understand as they affect our capital insolvency issues. Let me ask Rob to comment briefly and maybe a little more specifically on the capability issue and what's going on there.

Suneet, I'd make a couple of observations. One, yes, we are going to make similar investments and are making similar investments in both talent and systems. I would observe that we're starting with a very strong foundation in each deliver off of. And so that's extraordinarily helpful. Second, as Mark mentioned, from a stress testing specifically standpoint, we have done stress testing over a long period of time. We've done that both within a statutory framework and we've done that in the context of our capital protection framework as well. For us, it's a matter of migrating that over to a framework that is more Fed-centric than that which we've used. And we expect that, that will occur over an extended period of time. We are confident that we both can execute on this and that we have an ability to meet any reasonable standards that may be put up with respect to both the process of testing and the results of that testing.

And should we think about that migration to Fed standards as sort of a -- from a statutory framework to more of a GAAP framework?

I think that is absolutely one component of it. If you look at how we historically have been regulated, obviously, the statutory framework is critical to us. Although we have translated that historically into GAAP. But yes, the Fed is a GAAP regulator not a stat regulator and that would be one component of the migration.

Yes. Just one comment on that. The standard language of the regulation of -- internationally, the regulation of large financial institutions, is in a consolidated framework. And the only place for us that consolidated numbers live is in the GAAP world. We don't have a consolidated statutory view. But I would emphasize that we also have to pay a lot of attention to what our specific individual legal entities look like and the bottoms-up issues related to capital and liquidity and stress. So we're going to have to bring together both dimensions. But as Rob said, the consolidated GAAP world is generally the starting point for looking at large financial institutions in any regulatory setting, as it's been historically and as standards have emerged now.

I think I'll add one more comment, Suneet, which is when I described that migration, I would say that migration is coming from both sides. The existing stress testing framework that the Fed has used is very bank-centric. So it's not only GAAP, it's bank-centric. And so there's an acknowledgment that we need to move off something that's historically been entity level and statutory. And the Fed will need to look -- migrate its own stress testing away from those things that are appropriate to banks to those that are more appropriate to the insurance industry.

Our next question comes from the line of Erik Bass with Citi.

I guess could you first provide an update on your outlook for pension closeout activity. I know, John, you mention that in your opening remarks. And I guess is there a sticking point that's preventing larger deals from getting done right now or is it just a function of the long tail transaction process?

Sure, sure. Let me ask Steve Pelletier to speak to that. Steve?

Thanks, John. Erik, we still feel very positive about the prospects for development of the pension risk transfer markets. Funding levels are up, so are TBGC premiums. And revise mortality tables continue to sharpen every one's attention on longevity risk. So we continue to feel that, that bodes well for both the ability and propensity of planned sponsors to transact. These things take time to work their way through the system, both within plan sponsors and then on discussion with potential counterparties, like ourselves. But we still feel the basis for development is there. Charlie, last quarter talked about segmentation of the market from a size standpoint. I would add to that segmentation in the market from both a funded basis in which we're actually taking on the assets and on the part of the market where we're talking about pure longevity reinsurance. Look that in either way, both by size or by type of business, we are in a number of active discussions. We continue to feel that we will participate in the various segments of that market, in particular in the large segment that really plays to our strengths and our ability to develop customized solutions. But these transactions, as well as large full-service cases, these transactions are inherently lumpy and we'll see how they emerge. But the prospects for development of the market are still solid.

Got it. And if I could ask just one follow-up on the annuities business, where you've highlighted again how the earnings has outpaced AUM growth. I'm just wondered how much operating leverage do you have left in this business and can earnings growth continue to exceed AUM? Again, assuming there that the markets follow your normal assumptions, not the outsized returns we've had over the past couple of years.

I think, Eric, just to echo earlier comments, there can be further progress from the operating leverage that's kind of inherent in the business but that progress is going to be much more moderate if markets perform more in line with our more moderate expectations.

And we have time for one final question and that will be from the line of Yaron Kinar with Deutsche Bank.

If we look at the FX drag rate for this quarter, can you help us think about the forward impact of what with the rolling Japanese yen hedge program looks like for the next couple of years?

Well, we don't disclose the forward rates beyond the current year. We will talk about next year's translation rate at some point before the end of this year. But just a reminder of that, the hedging program is rigorous and structured. It's not discretionary, we don't try to anticipate moves in exchange rates, we put in place a rolling hedge over 3 years. What that basically means is that at any point in time, the next 12 months are fully hedged, the 12 months after that are about 2/3 of the way hedged and the 12 months after that are about 1/3 of the way hedged. The hedging transactions are executed in forward markets. So you ought to pay attention to the difference between spot and forward if you really want to try to hone in on this number. But basically, if rates stabilize where they are after 3 years, it will have fully worked its way through our translation and we'll be translating at a yen rate that's where the current market is. So a long way of saying it depends on how the market moves, but we do smooth it out as a result of our hedging translations.

Okay. And to follow-up on that. As -- since you discontinued the yen-based bank channel single premium whole life product, is it fair to assume that the overall portion of U.S. dollar earnings would actually increase in Japan? And can you give us a sense of what the business mix, kind of denomination look like?

We can't give you a specific mix, but there has been a proportion of obviously dollar-based sales. That's been the best-selling products in POJ for quite some time. With the diminution in the bank products, the single premium yen denominated whole life, the interesting part is that we are beginning to sell other products, as Mark said, in that particular channel. So the recurring premium whole life has come in, as we are selling more of now. And that's right down the center of the fairway of what we want to sell. So it's much more mortality-based and we like that product. In terms of the multicurrency product, we're not selling as much in the dollar-based product for a couple of reasons: one, interest rates have come down; and two, yen has depreciated against the dollar. So that product has diminished slightly against some of the other currency products that we sell.

Keep in mind that the in-force is large. And so the impact of any particular product activities in any particular year isn't going to move the needle very much. Those yen-denominated single premium products, which had fairly thin margins anyway, didn't swing earnings very much in favor of yen. And any particular year's activities will have a modest impact on mix.

Yaron, it's Eric. Without addressing what changes might occur in the future, rough justice, today, about half of the earnings in Japan are yen-denominated.

Okay. And then one more question on the annuity space. So clearly, you're successful in growing the PDI product, which is an income-oriented product. I think one of your competitors was talking last week about maybe shifting into a more of an investment-oriented product. Do you see a more attractive opportunity in the income protection side, or do you see some opportunities in investment growth, as well, in the annuities?

First of all, just to address one fact point in your question. We did launch an investment-only product at the end of April. But now let me place that in context. Our strategy in the annuities business is based on helping clients achieve secure retirement income. And doing so through a range of products that diversifies and mitigates our risk, we feel very confident about the profitability and risk profile of all the products that currently populate that strategy. HDI, as we've redesigned it, as Mark spoke about; PDI, which you mentioned; and now going forward, the investment-only product as well. So we think the range of these products is important to fulfilling that strategy of helping achieve secure retirement income.

And, ladies and gentlemen, today's conference call will be available for replay after 1:30 p.m. today until midnight, May 15. You may access the AT&T teleconference replay system by dialing (800) 475-6701 and entering the access code of 314090. International participants dial (320) 365-3844. That does conclude your conference call for today. Thank you for your participation and for using AT&T Executive TeleConference. You may now disconnect.