Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to our 2012 results presentation. I've done a few of these now, but we've never had this much trouble getting you into the room, so I'm not sure how to read that, if it's a sign of a lack of interest or anything else. But anyway, I will try to keep you all -- you interested. We will follow our usual format with 2 presenters, Nic and me. I will start with the highlights of our results for full year 2012 and comment on a few key aspects of our strategy. And I will then hand over to Nic, who will, as usual, cover our financial performance in a degree of detail. And I will come back at the end to talk about our medium- and long-term prospects and, closer to us, the outlook for the rest of the year. And we will then, of course, take your questions. Members of our executive team from across the world are present in this room or dialed into this results presentation. I think that's said [ph]. And collectively, we will do our best to answer any questions that you may have today. So starting with the results. Prudential has produced a strong performance in 2012, delivering both profitable growth and cash. At this point of the day, of course, you all have had a chance to look at the results, so I will just pick out some of the highlights. Starting with new business profits, our preferred metric for growth, we have grown by 14% to GBP 2.452 billion. Moving on to IFRS operating profits for the group. They are, for the first time, above GBP 2.5 billion and have grown by 25%. Since 2008, our IFRS operating profits have doubled, underlining, we believe, the quality…

Thank you, Tidjane, and good morning, everyone. My presentation follows the now familiar and increasingly popular theme of 'Growth and Cash' with a detailed look at the drivers of our performance in 2012 and an update on our capital position and balance sheet. Let's start with the financial headlines, which I summarized on this slide. In 2012, we have continued to build on the positive momentum of recent years, delivering good growth on all financial measures with new business and IFRS profit reaching new highs, both at GBP 2.5 billion, up 14% and 25%, respectively. It is noteworthy that we have done this in a period where interest rates took another step down, which highlights the quality of our new business franchise and the resilience of our in-force book of business. Expressed as pence per share, our IFRS earnings were up 14p to 76.8p. And our shareholders' funds, on an embedded value basis, were up by over GBP 1 to GBP 8.78 per share. Turning to cash. Free surplus generated has exceeded the GBP 2 billion mark for the first time, and this has allowed the businesses to remit GBP 1.2 billion to the center, yet more tangible evidence that our strategy delivers both growth in earnings and cash. The combination of high earnings and strong cash generation has enabled us to rebase the full-year dividend upwards once again, a strong signal in our confidence in the future prospects of our business. Turning to new business profit. This metric was up F14% to GBP 2,452,000,000. As you can see on this slide, we have reported strong growth in NBP across Asia, the U.S. and the U.K., maintaining our internal rates of return in all 3 regions at above 20%. The benefit of offering a focused product set in those parts…

Thank you very much, Nic. Nic has showed you in some degree of details of the quality of our financial results and their resilience. And I'm sure a fair question you may have now for us is, "What lies ahead?" And for us, the answer is possibly boring for you, but it's very much more of the same: profitable growth and cash, or to be more precise, profitable growth in Asia and cash generation from all businesses. Asia remains an incredible growth opportunity, the best one for this company. The structural trends in Asia of a rapidly growing and increasingly wealthy middle class with significant health and production needs, high savings reinsurance, rapid urbanization, which is important for our model, and low penetration underpins the demand for life insurance products for decades to come. OECD forecasts show that Asia will account for 66% of the world's middle class by 2013 versus 28% today. Almost 90% of the growth in the world middle class in the next 20 years will take place in Asia. This growth in scale of the middle class is accompanied also by raising wealth per capita. Asia is now home to the largest number of millionaires in the world, and that number is growing fast. You have seen vis-à-vis -- I've used this growth escalation chart before plus the relative GDP per capita of the countries we are focused on compared to the U.S. historic. The reason I keep coming back to this is that rising GDP per capita is very highly correlated with life insurance growth. This chart demonstrates that most of the sweet-spot countries have a significant amount of headroom for future profitable growth. However, to be frank, everybody can see this opportunity in Asia, and this is only a necessary condition for success, not…

Can we have another mic?

Another one -- does this work?

It's Jon Hocking from Morgan Stanley. I've got 3 questions, please. First on the U.S. With the rally in the S&P, what are you seeing in terms of allocation to equities? Is it rising, and maybe just because of market performance rather than an active decision by the policyholders? And what is your risk appetite for selling variable annuities given the high level of markets? You've got a very low 'In the Money,' this proportion, at the moment. Is there a risk here that you care, assuming that these levels in market falls? Second question on Asia. On the bancassurance side, you've clearly got strong momentum there. To what extent are you benefiting from these being largely first-generation bank deals where you've put a lot of intellectual property to the table, and in the medium-term, these become more commoditized, you see margins fall? And then the third question. When you set the targets in 2010, do you pretty much achieve those targets a year early? You spoke very clearly about the desire to sort of create optionality in terms of group structure, I think, was the phrase you used. Can you comment on where we are now and what you think you have with group structures to go forward?

Okay, thank you. Thanks a lot, Jon. Rally in S&P and effect on allocation to equities. Mike, do you want to take that?

Jon, it's not material. You're still seeing the equity levels that we showed you in New York, low 60s. A little slightly higher on sales, but just a few percentage points. I think the -- one of the more astute comments I heard today on -- in the morning financial talk shows is they were saying this is the least-loved equity rally in the United States that's ever had. The individual retail shareholders just have not seen it as something they wanted to jump into. So they're extremely cautious and I -- it'll be interesting to see the stats when they're out and how much of it they've actually participated in. On the S&P level, we don't just look at S&P levels on looking at risk appetite and how much sales we'd like. If you think about in contrast that the VIX is at a record low, interest rates are in a range that are acceptable, if they're hedged and managed correctly. So we still come back to internal metrics on the U.S. business, how much of a -- with life -- withdrawal benefit part of it we want to sell and also in the larger picture inside the group. So we take into account the market level, but it's not the driving factor.

Okay, very good. We had a question on bancassurance and where we're doing first-generation business and whether margins are going to decrease relatively.

Sure. Well, first of all, I'd remind you is, I think, both Tidjane and Nic pointed out that the SCB relationship grew well in excess of 40% last year. And I think technically, you would have to call that a second-generation deal because it's renewed once and we're now in our 15th year doing business with SCB in Asia. So I don't think -- UOB is obviously a newer deal. Thanachart, it's a very new deal. But SCB certainly is not, and it's performing at the highest levels in 2012 that it's ever performed. I think that speaks to the value that's generated and its unique value that's generated by the way we do these deals. Tidjane alluded to the insurance specialists that work in branch, the strong execution that we've had around that model. I think that's one of the reasons it performs as well as it has in the past and as recently as this last year. I think it speaks to the value of the exclusiveness of these relationships. We have lots of relationships across the region, but well over 70% of the economics of this channel come from these exclusive relationships. That's why we continue to focus on those. The relationships obviously -- you would not be getting the level of growth that you're getting in SCB and UOB, and the others, where you're not generating strong value for consumers. So I think the model is extremely durable and we'll continue to perform extremely well going into the future. There -- clearly, there's going to be competition for these deals in the future, but we continue to believe, for all the reason I've just said, that we have a level of credibility with respect to performance. It's very different from what we've ever had or that what anyone else has, so we feel very, very good about where these deals are headed.

If I can just add a few words and build on that, this is possibly the heart of the difference, sometimes, between some of the analyst community or investors and us. We're all trained to have a critical mind and believe that everything that goes up will go down, et cetera, et cetera. There are times in economic history, in history of the world, where that's just wrong, okay? And we think that's one time like that. If you're in America, that's why I used those historic charts. I mean, America in 1850, and you think that the growth is a flash in the pan and it's all going to peter out and the margins are going to go down and America's going to get nowhere, you get everything you want, okay? I bore all my team because I've encouraged them to read those. I'll let someone else talk about the book [ph]. We'll -- it's the transformation of China is what I forgot, which is a phenomenon, some of you may have read it, which explains blow-by-blow-by-blow everything that happened in China since the '60s or '70s. If you're in China in 1980 and you say, "Oh, okay, this is going to last 10 or 15 years," you're just going to get everything wrong. We talked -- we have a few hundred thousands of customers in places where population is huge, industrious, hard-working, doing all the right things, and we keep telling you, "You know what, it's going to continue and will especially -- and the margins are going to go down." I mean, since we've been in this room, every time we've been on the stage we go, we've had -- when are the margins going to decrease? They will only increase.

It was the first day we did, which was December of '06, the questions were resoundingly. We were, I think, 54% margin. It was how far will they fall and how fast.

Surely they will decrease from here. So we're here with skepticism. We're always going to continue saying what we believe and try to deliver on that. But that's really the story. That's the story. That's what delivers these numbers. We are at the beginning of an enormous opportunity. Will there be more competition? Yes. Will there be more players? Yes, but with the microeconomics of these are so healthy, but you're making good returns. And to not be in the banking channel would be just mad. Really, that thing I showed you about financial asset ownership, that's the big wave. And the price we are willing to pay is because we see some of our projections. I'll tell you, Europe here has doubled every year since we signed it. So what price we paid, was it a good price or not a good price? We think that we know these markets very well. We think that we're very well positioned to price the growth in those markets and we have thousands of agents selling insurance in those markets, so give us some credit. We have a sense of the growth potential in those places. When we pay a price, it's really very willingly, because we're absolutely 100% sure we'll create value from that price. We can argue with our friend Greig [ph], we can argue over whether it's going to grow at 5% or 10%. We believe we're in a better -- with all respect, a better position than you to know how much bancassurance we can sell in Singapore or Hong Kong. That's to initiate the debate. Okay, now -- not yet. A year early, the targets look -- well, it's a nice point. I'm glad to get the question, let's say that. So I think when we started,…

Blair Stewart from BofA Merrill. Just on remittances back to the group, particularly interested in your thoughts around where we go from here with Asia and the U.S. Asia free surplus generation was GBP 829 million. You remitted GBP 341 million. The U.S., probably more importantly, was over GBP 1 billion and you remitted GBP 260 million. So what should we be thinking about when we think about how that goes and how that moves going forward? Second question, at UOB, how close to the penetration levels at UOB are we compared to some of your other partners, just to gauge where we can go from here? And thirdly, on the U.S., you've talked about constrained volumes somewhat. News from -- or got it from the market as the others are doing the same. I just wonder, is it a race to the bottom, the features war? And can you control your sales in the way that you'd hoped?

Okay, thanks, Blair. Remittances, Nic, do you want to take that?

I'm going to be a little boring when it comes to that. Just to take a cue from Tidjane, we set targets for 2013. Well, our first objective is to meet those. Of course, as I said, there is a -- we are a highly capital-generative business. So as time passes, provided the disciplines remain, which is what we are focusing on, more and more capital will be generated and more and more will be remitted to the center. That is there for a number of reasons, not only to effectively underpin the reliability of the dividend payment to shareholders, but ultimately ensure that we have enough capital in the business to take shocks as they emerge in our stride, and that's key. We have a strong opportunities in a number of markets, and it would be criminal to find that those opportunities aren't fully leveraged, taken in our stride if we, for whatever reason, a shock takes place which reduces our capital buffer. So having enough to absorb the shock is important. And that's how we manage it. We've given you some guidance as to remittance ratios. That was over the 2009 to 2013 period. When we get beyond that, we can address that topic again.

Okay, just to make sure I understand the second question, Blair. It was about ROE, and you were saying penetration, but I missed...

Penetration.

Penetration inside UOB?

Amongst customers...

Yes. Okay, sure. Barry...

It's -- we've only been at this for 3 years with UOB. And the track record already, as Tidjane has given some numbers around, is very strong, but we've only been in it for 3 years. Now I'm not -- wouldn't want to suggest to you that we can commit to 60%, 70% growth every year, as we had last year, but we're still at a very low levels of penetration relative to the bank. UOB is a big bank. Wee Ee Cheong, who's the Chief Executive, runs a very entrepreneurial bank. So we benefit from the fact that the business -- well, our business within the bank is growing fast. The bank is growing pretty fast too, and both in -- not just in Singapore, but in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Thailand. And now they're doing some business in China. So the pie is growing faster than we can eat it. Isn't that what we said about stuff like this? The opportunity's getting bigger and bigger and we run very fast to take advantage of the opportunity, but there's still an enormous amount of headroom left in UOB, so I wouldn't be concerned about that.

Okay. And so you're just on -- there was a third question on the U.S., yes, and the race to the bottom.

Yes. So there's 2 parts to your question, Blair. The -- on the -- can we control our line [ph]? We actually hit the number almost on the head that the board and DHO asked us to hit last year. So that was where we were -- wanted to be and that's the -- at the end, it got a little tighter because we pulled -- the 10 35s in the last 6 weeks were a challenge, but we got to where we wanted it to be. The hardest thing for us to control right now is not the pricing and the profitability of the products so much as it is competitive behavior. The 2 lead competitors being PRU and MET last year, they have both reduced their appetite. MET down from GBP 30 billion to GBP 17 billion, which is a pretty material drop, obviously. And they have given guidance for the lower number, and then PRU has as well. We never -- to Tidjane's slide on the future rates, we have never built our plans off of market share or off of top line, and nor is this a particularly good point in the cycle to do that. I think we need to look at Jackson's balance sheet again, and risk appetite and mix of fees and quality of earnings and all the things we look inside the group to make those determinations. But to your point, is it a race to the bottom? The second-level players, call it players 4 through 6, will be the big benefactors of more constrained sales, no question. And the industry sales are off a few percent going into the -- in December. I think it's key that the products maintain a proper balance between stakeholders. They -- as I mentioned to you in December, I think everything we sell has value to the investor. I think if the industry's not careful and it prices too aggressively right now, they'll lose some of that, and that will create an industry issue, but I don't think we'll get there. As I mentioned earlier, the cost of the hedging is down. In this point in the cycle, there's other pressure, I think, on these firms. I don't know how PRU and MET are articulating our U.S. strategy right now, and that's not my place to speak to, but it's a -- we like where we are. We like the volumes. I think the noise, just the last point, you're going to get there is Elite Access sales are counted by the industry as a VA with absolutely no guarantees on them. So as long as we're successful with EA and continue to grow EA, you're going to see our ranking go up. And I need your indulgence to back that out of those metrics. It's not a reasonable comparison to look at MET's GMIB next to a product with no guarantees.

And I think the final point on the customer is really important. I am sure you will have noticed that we don't usually talk a lot of the customer in these presentations. And the shift today is deliberate. I think, well, there are many reasons why it all got very financial during the crisis, but I was very keen today to just step back from what I think has been going on for a long time. We take the presentation only to talk about cash flow and capital, but at the end, we run a business. And people just lose sight of the fact that the product has to be viable. And that is a very important feature in what's going on in the VA market, that people don't take it to a space where it just doesn't make sense for our customer to buy the product. That's the limit to what we can do [indiscernible]...

Consistency and a number of other issues later if it's not -- got well.

Exactly. Yes?

It's Andrew Crean from Autonomous. I have 3 questions, if I may. Firstly, your change in the way you do the IGD for the U.S. business, does that chime in with the way that you think you'll be doing the U.S. business under Solvency II with -- if you get U.S. equivalence? Secondly, could you talk about the -- in the U.S., where you are in terms of the fee -- hedge fees which you receive versus the amount of hedge money that you pay out for hedging, both last year and how you see it this year? And then thirdly, if you look at long-term metrics, one of the things you were showing is that your cash generation, I think Nic was showing it was up 2.4x since 2008. The dividend -- I'm being slightly parsimonious here, is only up 1.5x, and nothing grows as slowly as the dividend in this group. It's -- which is a slight contrast to some other groups. But could you say how that might -- whether that's a continuing feature over the next 5 years?

Okay, thank you, Andrew. I'm disappointed you didn't ask me about economic capital. It was something I wanted to say there, but we -- I'll find a way.

Do say it if you wish.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'll find a way to do it. IGD, look, it's interesting. IGD, the way we've talked about it over the years and during the crisis was always to guide you to think about it as something for the U.S., okay, because we've got the credit reserve in the U.K. Asia, frankly, from a risk perspective, capital is not a big deal. M&G doesn't consume any capital. So what I said, okay, fundamentally, IGD -- and we have inherited estate in the capital [ph]. IGD, you think about it as a U.S. model, and that's why the U.S. discussion is so material to IGD. I think the guidance we're getting -- and I'm looking at you here, Nic, and I have to choose my words. But Solvency II is further now, objectively. So it's what we say in our remarks. There is a need, and we are -- there's a very active dialogue, very organized. Obviously, U.S. now moving for us. We meet regularly with the FSA. We've started that process in October. It's actually -- I'm very happy with vines [ph], went very well because we had a very pragmatic dialogue on how do we move forward. Our understanding is that right now, the FSA is comfortable with RBC for the time being, having looked at it and having looked at how it operates. So I cannot speculate on U.S. equivalence and are we going to get it or not. But in the interim period and with the RBC level set where it is, I think both sides are comfortable. But besides, it is [indiscernible] definition. So a good way to look at things and it works. I don't know, Nic, if you...

No, I mean, the debate on equivalence, I mean, it's very hypothetical because we're not in that world, and it's now 2 or 3 years away. There's also a program and a discussion, very active discussion, between U.S. and European regulators to see if, for the benefit of the extra time, something could emerge that bridges the 2. The key to that discussion is the acceptance by Europe that RBC is an appropriate regime to incorporate into the numbers that we'll eventually, at some point, adopt in the -- in Europe. And I think getting confirmation, either from here in the U.K. or elsewhere, that RBC is equivalent is the first -- is an important -- is the first patter in an important step. Now as to what that percentage will be, it will no doubt then vary by company to company depending on a number of factors, and it's just premature to speculate as to what that might be.

Andrew, really, it's as we showed, is that we run the business to 400. That's what you saw. We now -- that's what's relevant to us, and we manage it to be above 400 RBC. U.S. hedge fees versus the hedge fund?

It was obviously a good year, and you see the numbers there for the hedging again. With hedge costs down, I think if you looked at -- you might want some generic measurements, the VIX, the historic low levels. The question came up, I think, in New York on where we think -- or historically, on the Milliman Index. We don't use it, but even the recalibrated one, which is closer to ours, is down to 95. We're charging 120. So I think there's -- we're comfortable with the fee base we have. We are clearly positioning the hedge. We're not looking to generate, as we've talked before, an excess return on any difference there. We're looking to offset more risks. So I think our statement in New York was we see more short-term risks in the market and so we're hedging accordingly, but we're still looking at tails as the -- as where the money is going. So there's no material shift in the hedge structure. It's a little lower cost right now per transaction, but there's more transactions. That's a robust answer.

Yes, it happened...

Yes, go ahead.

That we've -- we updated the -- how much we spent in the course of 2012 on Slide 92. So the fees were $850 million. That's what we charged, U.S., and we spent that. Just the sheer size of the growth in the book will mean that we will collect around $1 billion of fees next year in 2013 -- or sorry, this year, in 2013. If hedging is too bad, well, we will just hedge further into the tail.

And then the long-term metrics and the difference between cash and dividend growth, I think your observation is correct. Nothing grows more slowly than the dividend. I think it's a position we like. We think it's the way it should be. Because in the difference between the 2, you do a number of things. I mean, first of all, we're all pleased with the growth numbers of the group. So balance sheet gets bigger, so you need to retain also, so all that cash and capital and earnings for a bigger company, which was the feature of growing at 20% in a number of places, so that's one thing. Two, we are still -- there's still a lot of uncertainty out there. My own view is relatively cautious. I've said many times that we've had 0 default this year. We had 0 default the previous year. From memory, we had GBP 12 million of default the year before that. Of the GBP 27 billion annuity book, our stress is -- our credit book is stressed. And I am -- I don't believe that we'll get out of this cycle without a credit event. I just don't. That's my personal skepticism. So I think having a strong capital base is sensible. That's why we are holding on to the credit reserve and the annuity book and won't touch it. We've seen the downgrade. We've seen all that. We know that the economy is supported by the current level of interest rates, and we know that a number of companies and households will be under strain if and when there's any developed normalization of the interest rate environment. So there are some clouds out there. In Europe, we're at the mercy of any election. We've seen interesting results from election to election.…

Okay, thank you, Greig. On the other intangibles sort of question, Nic, do you, I mean...

I think we can help you. We -- the information is there. We just need to help you get there. But let me reiterate the point that I always do when you ask these questions. The upfront paid fees that we pay are fully amortized, in line with the profile of the business that we would like. I want to take the opportunity to reiterate that all our metrics that we've reported today, be it IRRs, NBP, so on and so forth, are fully loaded for an appropriate amortization of those upfront costs, and we will help you with the disclosures. Greig N. Paterson - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Limited, Research Division: [indiscernible]

Believe me, it's appropriate.

Yes. But it's important to note that it's amortized. So we're not overstating anything. And we can show you where it is, and then we can discuss whether the methodology is correct or not. Active agents and sweet spot, this is also an old debate between us. But how can I say this. We believe we've given you the information where it's relevant. But if you want more detail, we're happy to provide it.

Were you referring to the 34% active...

No, it's the 19% increase NBP, going from 100 to 119. Yes? Greig N. Paterson - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Limited, Research Division: [indiscernible] increase in agents [indiscernible]...

Yes, yes. Let me tell you a more important measure. We've talked about, as recently as half year and I think at the -- in New York and every other time we get together, about how blunt that APE per active is. What a -- it's not a great measure. It's -- we've used it historically because it's -- to go much further, it gets complicated. But what we started looking at more recently in more detail is using NBP, which is a far better measure. And for 6 years, we've been talking about NBP as our principal sales metric. So we're trying to measure the economic impact of active agents by using some of those metrics. And on that basis, the activity rates, if you will, look very strong. The NBP produced per agent materially outperformed the APE produced per agent. The margin for our active agents increased 8 basis points last year, and that's across the region. That's not just sweet spot.

But the sweet spot, I'm just trying to do a quick calculation, it's really 19% of our agency force. That's where the outside [indiscernible] Korea...

I mean, India is big. India is big.

Take India out because India is 230,000.

Take India out? It's India, yes, it's...

If you take India out, we've given you...

It's overwhelming, not a sweet spot.

Where it's relevant, because you're left with China, Korea and Taiwan. Japan, which is closed. Taiwan is all bancassurance. No, seriously, Taiwan is all bancassurance, and Korea is a few -- how many agents do we have now in Korea?

Well, Korea, as you know, is basically 1,000 active agents there, and you've got -- and then...

Exactly, so it's actually nothing. So with this, you've got the substance. So it's not just -- again, it's really the reality of the agency force in Asia that we're giving you. But we can give you -- but another thing you were asking for was Korea, no problem.

[indiscernible].

I don't know. Charles, [ph] when is it online?

So I can't tell you exactly when it comes online because what we're waiting for now -- really, the only thing we're waiting for is regulatory approval, and it'd be presumptuous of me to suggest when the Thai regulator will approve it, but we do have every expectation that it will be considered during the course of this month. And so hopefully, it will -- it would -- the deal would then close sometime early in the second quarter. And there's an enormous amount of work going on that our -- that the 2 -- the working groups from both sides are meeting literally daily in Bangkok in order to ensure that we get a very fast start, just as we did with UOB, notably, in Thailand, where we were in every branch within 30 days. Effectively, enhance all the products. So this is 800 branches. It's a little more complicated, but we expect to be -- have very good coverage across the branches very soon after the deal closes. So you can expect a strong performance there. I mean, we met literally as recently as last week in Bangkok. I was there, and all the work is going very well. In terms of what the impact Thanachart will have in terms of margins, again, we have to be careful here because we're talking about results that are really going to be second quarter results. But I would remind you of some of the things we said around the Thanachart deal, one of which was that this is one deal where there's been quite a good amount of protection already sold through the previous company, through the bank. So this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a bad margin story. We think this is quite a good margin story.

Very good, next?

It's Colin Simpson from Goldman Sachs. Your free surplus, I think, was held back by a repayment of contingent capital. Could you just remind us the sort of future drag on that from, I think, the financing agreement? Second question was the Oliver Wyman data actually shows asset management to be a huge beneficiary when you move from GDP per capita of up to 2,000 to 2,000 -- 2,000. Why does it feel like Eastspring is underperforming, given your profit growth and maybe some of the third parties coming from Taiwan or -- and whatever? And the third question, actually, when you look at your IFRS sensitivities for your U.S. business, it almost feels like we should be hoping for interest rate declines and equity market falls to make the profit go up, which is obviously not the case. Any chance of getting some sort of metrics that we can work with to show maybe economic value move? I know it's a question you've probably had 100 times.

Okay, Colin. Yes, reimbursement of contingent capital increase. Nicolaos, you?

Yes. There, what we have 2 types of contingent arrangements. There are those that are external, which we tapped in 2009. We flagged this time last year that we expect to repay GBP 145 million of that back, which was the last remaining element. We paid GBP 130 million. So there's just a little more to come through. Additionally, there are some internal ones, which are historic. They've been there for some time. All but an GBP 80 million chunk has been repaid by the end of 2012. So that just gives you a sense that there's a little more to come, but it's of the order of GBP 100-or-so million.

Okay. Well, asset management, I agree with you that it's a big opportunity in banks. Eastspring, do you want to say a few words? Distribution is your sort of...

Sure, absolutely. The fact is that, remember, we're doing business effectively in the onshore markets, the domestic markets, across 11 markets in Asia. And when you look at the industry statistics for those markets, in fact, we're not underperforming, we're outperforming the industry. We've moved from this -- from the #2 retail asset manager in the region to #1 over the last year, and we've got record-breaking assets under management. So it's actually in the context of the environment in which we do business in Asia. It's a very good story. Here's the bad news. The bad news is that while we've seen terrific equity market gains, certainly in North America, and you've seen some robust results here as well, you've seen a lot of flows in this part of the world, reality is the Asian retail market has been an outflow since December 2007. It has still not recovered from the crisis. So in that context, we've actually -- the fact that we're growing as we have, we've done quite well. Our investment performance is good given that most of our funds are focused on Asian equities, and again, that you've not had the strong performance in Asian markets that you have in the rest of the world. In the context of the market, our performance is good, about -- over 60%, about 2/3 of our funds are either at benchmark or in the upper quartiles. We've done particularly well in the last year on fixed income, on bond funds, which is handy because that's been what the consumer appetite has been for in the last year, and that's why you see the fund at GBP 58 billion. The downside of that, obviously, is that the fees we earn for managing that fixed income are not as lucrative as for equity. As Tidjane said, we're extremely well positioned. The branding exercise that we've done has gone really well. So we now have much more of a global presence than we did 12 months ago. That's already borne some fruit. And then we've gotten, both from Europe and, more importantly, from the Americas, we've seen institutional flows coming in. So I'm very optimistic and you should be very optimistic about the prospects for Eastspring. But when you look at the retail market in Asia, we are in a pretty tough environment.

And it's like many things we do. We -- you have to look at it in the long-term. And I'm looking at Michael here, who may be able to help us. But if you've got what M&G did in Continental Europe, I must say, personally, I was actually quite skeptical. And for a long time, we'd have meetings, Victor and I, all saying, when is this going to materialize, [indiscernible] -- it takes a long time. Michael, I don't know if you want to say a word on that, the GBP 5.2 billion this year. It took you a while to get there.

Yes. It's taken 11 years.

Yes, yes. You have to look at it on the right time horizon. It doesn't happen overnight, and it's a long run -- it's a long slope, is what I was saying. So it -- fairly confident it won't happen. Don't hold us on a year or 2, because it's not going to be visible in that scale of time. Third question was something you can work with. Look, and I want to say a few words about economic capital because it's all linked to the IGD discussion, and it's probably historically one of the most uncomfortable areas for me. You ask me -- I'm under pressure on this many times. But we were all waiting for Solvency II, hoping that it would land in a reasonable space. Do we have an economic way of picking out capital internally? Yes. We use it for decision-making. And thanks to Solvency II, in a way, we have invested a lot in our internal models, et cetera, et cetera. And we think now we are getting to a point where we can design and then serve, and we'll be ready to present to you and give you some visibility on how we look at economic capital. And I expect that to be an interesting dialogue. So Nic and his teams are -- I'm glad you're smiling. Nic and his team are working day and night so that we can give you more and more visibility on that. But you can comment probably, Nic. Do you want to?

Yes. I mean, I -- as I said, the -- we wanted to give you a number at the same time as Solvency II. Now with the delay, we've been building the models. We want to get them to the right quality. I only -- Tidjane and I are aligned. We only like to give you information -- put out information in the market that is robust. We need to continue to invest a little more to give the reliability that I'm looking for. And in the course of the next year or so, we will be in a position to give you what others are already giving you. And again, from my perspective, that is only one of a basket of metrics that we look at. It's -- there's nothing -- I wish our industry was as -- so simple as to have one thing and, say, judge us by one thing. It's not.

Yes.

Economic capital is relevant. Local capital is relevant, RBC in the U.S., because that's what we use. New business, there's -- we make decisions balancing the trade-offs between a whole host of things. But yes, we'll provide the economic capital information.

We really believe that most companies that got in trouble in our industry, historically, have gotten in trouble because they only looked at 1 or 2 metrics. There are many, many dangerous strategies if you only focus on one. So I know it's sometimes frustrating for you because we give you complicated answers. But really, in most situations, you cannot just look at one thing because of the time horizon of all this. Look at statutory. We started statutory because, in the end, you need to upstream cash, you need to upstream dividend, your local statutory position is very, very important, okay? Look at IGD, look at economic capital and our understanding of it, which is not the Solvency II understanding of it. You look at cash flow, you look at free surplus, you've got all those things every time you make a decision. So it's never going to be one metric that explains everything we do. Yes, Gordon?

Gordon Aitken from RBC. Couple of questions. First one, last year, you talked about launching into some new geographies. You talked about Brazil, Poland, Middle East. I'm wondering where you are with these and what the long-term potential you see. And secondly, this U.K. credit default provision, I mean, given how the credit environment has improved since that was set up, and we also saw Aegon, a few weeks ago, release some of its U.K. provisions. I mean, if it is over-reserving, the regulator's going to be keen on that, but the tax authorities less so. Can you just talk about how your discussions with the various authorities are going on that? And what scenario would cause you to actually start releasing that provision?

Okay, very good. Brazil, Poland, Rob, do you want to say a word on both? [indiscernible]...

Yes, sure. Let's start with Poland, which has been a welcome. We opened a branch of PAC in Poland on the 25th of February which we are delighted about. Poland is very attractive from all of the -- all the metrics that we look at, in terms of its demographics, its insurance penetration, the lack of a robust social safety net, et cetera. So in that market, we're really bringing together the key attributes that we have as a group. So we're bringing together the with-profits fund, which happens to have a lot of attractive attributes for the market, not least a 90% tax advantage for the investors, with some of our skills from Asia. And it so happens our Chief Executive in Poland actually is one of the stars out of Barry's team, and we're bringing together some of the writers, for instance, and product propositions out of Asia. So we're delighted about that. But it's more, and we're growing it, and we're growing it organically. And that's something that we fundamentally believe in as well. So don't expect any impact on the results while you guys are all around, and probably while we're around. It's something we're building for the next 20 years, not the next 3 years. Brazil, other markets, look, Barry and I, between us, we've been looking at a whole host of markets globally. We've had conversations and conversations continue. But again, we've got to find something which is -- which builds on our strengths and which we can do, broadly, organically. Just planting a flag to get to rise with the riding -- rising tide, that's not of interest to us.

Yes. And if I can just emphasize one thing, we are not doing this because we are worried about growth in Asia. We are not worried about growth in Asia. We're doing this because we think it's valuable. Poland is interesting. We're conducting a little experiment, which is really, can we export our Asian model? That's what Rob explained. And it's very interesting to do and receive this from Asia where products are from Asia. And it's a question of we would like to know the answer if -- with certainty, because then it has many other applications around the world. And so far, our indications have been...

The indications are great. And the -- I mean, it's worth also saying the he's the one Asian. There are no U.K. people there, and the other 90 people who work in our Polish operations have been attracted from the Polish market and joined -- some fantastic people have joined us because we're trying to do something a bit different and they want to be a part of it.

And to be clear, again, it's not a precursor to our European strategy. When I say the application's elsewhere, it's not in Europe, just to avoid any misunderstanding. The credit default reserve?

I'm going to disappoint you, Gordon. Now we think this is not a number that we dial up without -- on an active basis. When it comes to this, we will adopt the same philosophy that we adopt elsewhere. We will move it when we have certainty, certainty by reference to what the markets are doing. Tidjane has already commented on that, and certainty when it comes to a regulatory development is an evolution of our capital. At that point, then we will revisit that particular topic.

Very good. One more, maybe, because it's a -- we're running out of time here.

Andy Hughes, Exane BNP Paribas. Three questions, if I could. The first one's on capital. I know you talked a lot on -- about capital already, but there are 2 things I'm a bit confused about. The first one is the Pillar 2 positions. So I wasn't sure whether there's FSA agreement regarding the U.S.? Also, I meant that this similar capital surplus was shown to Pillar 2? And then a similar related question on the G-SIFI status. So I think in the U.S., you said you expected to be G-SIFI. And we know now that I think variable annuities were nontraditional insurance, so therefore, there's a whole new debate about the level of capital needed to set the high variable annuities. Could you talk a bit about that, please? And the other 2 are probably a little bit easier. Well, I'll just make one, actually. The -- you talked quite positively about Hong Kong agency in your presentation. Yet when I look at the bancassurance growth and see that 50% of it is related to Hong Kong, it seems to suggest the Hong Kong agency hasn't grown at all over the year, being 50% of it being bancassurance and bancassurance's been up 40% and Hong Kong is holding up 20%.

Okay, all right. Thanks, Andy. Nic, do you want to take that?

Pillar 2. Our discussions with the FSA on Pillar 2 are focus on the U.K. So I don't have anything to add to that particular answer. Pillar 2 will come. As regulation evolves, it would've been here a year from now had Solvency II come in. But it's -- therefore, I don't have an answer to the question that you have beyond our discussions in the U.K.

And as I said, we are putting words in their mouth. So far, regulators' position has been that they are comfortable with having RBC base conversations with us in the U.S. That's what's been -- that's what's we've been having. G-SIFI, you know that the Geneva Association has taken a position, has published a study by Oliver Wyman on that, where we said that we were not a systemic risk. But size is not the right criterion to look at this. We are part of the dialogue and the process and the meetings and phone calls, et cetera. And at some point, I think during 2013, we'll -- at least we'll be published. But our understanding is that, anyway, there wouldn't be any capital implication until 2019. That's the date we've been given. So we will have time to come back to this. It's not a pressing issue. Hong Kong agency?

Yes. The Hong Kong agency actually had a great year last year, and so did SCB. There's no doubt about it. But for years, we've been in a situation where the Hong Kong business is basically -- it'll move 1% or 2%, but it's 50% agency and 50% bank, and it continues at that pace. The market -- or our business in Hong Kong grew 20% last year at top line, and that -- the ratio did not change materially. So they had relatively equal growth rates. Bank will have performed a little bit better, but not materially better. But by any other metric, the -- we had -- setting aside the economic changes, which happened because of low interest rates which hit Hong Kong, the NBP generated by agents was great. We had a great recruitment year, I think, Tidjane touched on. We have -- we had 20% growth in the number of agents that are qualified for MDRT, to the extent that you view that as a metric. I think it's kind of a blunt metric, but it is what it is. So that was a very strong growth rate. We had a great year.

It was a very good year because if you remember that growth chart, you had Hong Kong and Singapore at the top in GDP per capita. And it's very simple. Hong Kong is just a mainland business. Mainland business is an enormous addition to the growth there. Everybody benefits from it. That's a big business for us. And Singapore is just really -- we've had, particularly, the Indonesians, the rich Indonesians and the rich people from all -- it's the Switzerland of Asia.

There's Indians and some Mainland Chinese as well.

Yes, mainland Chinese as well. You see them there, and we benefit from that a lot in the high-net worth segment. So both markets still show very good growth, although they are high in GDP per capita. Well, we're running to the afternoon. So I think we're going to stop here. I'm happy to answer more questions if and when you have them. You know where to find us. But thank you for your patience, and a good rest of the day. Thank you.