Good morning, everybody. Thank you taking time to join us on our call today. As you may have seen from our press release this morning, we delivered a strong first half with underlying growth trends across all market segments returning to the improving trajectory that we saw in the early part of 2020. We made good operational and strategic progress, investing behind our strategic priorities to drive organic growth through the development of analytics and decision tools across segments with recent acquisitions performing well. We also continued to build on our strong ESG performance, making good progress on many of our internal metrics and maintaining or improving our key external ratings. In the first half, revenue growth at constant currencies was 4%. Adjusted operating profit growth was 11%. Adjusted earnings per share growth was 10%, and we had announced an increase in the pound sterling interim dividend of 5%. Our three largest business areas all delivered improved underlying revenue growth in the first half. So let's look at the results of each business area. In Risk, underlying revenue growth was 10%. Underlying adjusted operating profit growth was 12%. Transactional revenue, which represents around 60% of the divisional total, grew in the double digits in the first half. Volumes in most segments continue to develop strongly against both the disrupted first half of 2020 and the first half of 2019. Subscription revenue, which represents around 40% of the divisional total and were last year's disruption, was more second half weighted, has seen a more recent return to historical growth rates, driven by strong new sales across markets. Business Services represents nearly 45% of divisional revenue, double-digit. Revenue growth was driven by strong demand across almost all market segments. In fraud and identity, our leading digital identity solutions performed particularly well, with…

Thank you, Erik. Good morning, everyone. Let me start by providing more detail on the group financials. Revenue growth for the period was 4% at constant currency, reflecting the strong performance of Risk, STM and Legal. Adjusted operating profit growth was 11% at constant currency, with all four business areas showing improved results. The adjusted operating margin improved to 30.1%. The improved profit performance flowed through to adjusted earnings per share, which were up 10% at constant currency. Cash conversion was strong at 112%, contributing to a significant reduction leverage to 2.8x including leases and pensions, down from 3.3x at the end of 2020. Given the strong overall performance, we've been able to increase the interim dividend by 5% to 14.3p. Looking at revenue, underlying growth trends in our three largest business areas returned to the improving trajectory that we saw in the early part of 2020, with Risk at 10%, STM at 4% and Legal at 3%. Given the extent of event rescheduling during the year, underlying measures are not meaningful for Exhibitions for the first half and hence not for the group as a whole. Portfolio changes were a small net positive for Risk. But within the roundings, a small positive for STM and a small negative for Legal. We generate the majority of our revenues in dollars, of course. And with sterling stronger on average against the dollar as well as the euro compared with the first half of last year, currency movements were a drag on sterling reported growth rate of between 4% and 8% with group revenue down 3% in sterling. On adjusted operating profit, Risk and Legal delivered underlying growth slightly ahead of underlying revenue growth with some benefit from phasing of expenses. For STM, adjusted operating profit growth was in line with revenue…

Thank you, Nick. Just to summarize what we covered this morning. We delivered a strong first half with underlying growth trends across almost all market segments returning to the improving trajectory that we saw in the early part of 2020, and we continue to invest behind our strategic priorities. Going forward, based on the improved performance in Risk, STM and Legal in the first half, we expect full year underlying growth rates in revenue and adjusted operating profit as well as constant currency growth and adjusted earnings per share to be slightly above historical trends. And with that, I think we're ready to go to questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from the line of Adam Berlin from UBS. Please ask your question.

Adam Berlin from UBS. I've got three for me. The first question was on RBA. I just wanted to understand, are we seeing a sequential quarter-on-quarter improvement in revenues starting, say, in Q3 last year? And do you expect that to continue into Q3 and Q4 of this year? Or is it just an effect of the easy comps is why the organic growth is so strong? That's the first question. The second question is on Exhibitions. Can you give us a sense of -- for the shows that ran in July where you said they generated £50 million, are those revenues broadly in line with 2019 still substantially down? Can you give us a sense of what the gap is versus kind of normalized revenue performance for the shows that did run in July? And the third question is on STM. There was some press that you've sold some publications in Elsevier to Mark Allen Group. Can you just tell us if that's material? Will that have any effect on the revenues of STM in the second half? And was that -- impact of that excluded from the underlying revenues reported for STM in the first half?

I will hand the second question to Nick after I'm done with the first and the third here. When it comes to risk, what we see is an improvement as we talked about earlier in transactions that came -- starting to come through already in the second half of last year and continued to strengthen. And at the same time, though, we saw subscriptions, the negative impact coming through later in the year in the second half. So it's a combination of the balance of the two that has created the results that you see now. And so in terms of quarter-on-quarter, we can have Nick later talk to you more specifically about it. But it's not a quarter-on-quarter issue, it's a question of what you compare to during last year where the first quarter was not disrupted significantly until the end and to the middle of March basically, and then significantly be disruptive for transaction in the second quarter. Then in the third -- fourth quarter, the impact came through a bit of subscriptions. Subscriptions that was impacted in the first part of this year and now coming to and drilling again at the beginning of the second half or at the end of the first half this year. So it's a balance of the two. And as you can see last year, the growth rate was not significantly higher in the second half than it was in the first half when you had those two. When it comes to STM, the piece that we sold this year was very, very small, immaterial when it comes to STM. It's an immaterial tale of some of these commercially corporate-oriented sort of magdalene-oriented sector, so it's immaterial in any way you can look at it.

Yes. And Adam, on the Exhibitions and the July shows, there's quite a range of outcomes in terms of the performance relative to the prior addition. Some are actually up, others quite a long way down, and we've been seeing that all year. I mean, China typically is doing well and is often the events are above the previous addition. Sometimes below, but sometimes above, depending on how international they are in other markets. I mean, you've got all sorts of dynamics. But with some of these events, we've changed the city, we've changed the time of year. It's -- you always sort of can't compare them. But we still felt it was worth holding the events and giving the customer what service we're able to provide them. So there's a big wide range. I'm not sure you can read anything into how they're doing for future reference, because I think it much depends on the specific circumstances of that event, that city, what restrictions there are, what limits there are on capacities and so on. So a big wide range.

Nick, can I just follow up just on two other questions quickly? So just on risk, can you just -- are we seeing Q-on-Q improvements in absolute revenue in dollars, I suppose, or not? And on Exhibitions, can you just -- maybe ask it a different way then, how dependent are you on a return to kind of international travel to get revenues back to 2019 levels?

Yes. I mean on risk, absolutely, the revenues of improving the -- and going up. The subscription side had a very different pattern last year. Obviously, it held up initially better that was then impacted, has taken longer to come back. The transactional side is, as Erik was describing, very dependent on what was in the -- how much disruption there was in the prior period. But if you look at sort of the sequencing of it, we continue to grow. We've got good new sales. Good momentum, so definitely. And on Exhibitions, yes, I mean, clearly, that the China, U.S. tend to be more domestic events in terms of the audience is more domestic. Some of the international, if there's a more international component to it, that's clearly tougher. But that's going to -- going forward, that's going to depend on how restrictions are lifted, what travel constraints there are. And I'm not sure you can read a whole amount into what's happened in these shows we've just run. I mean some of them, particularly the U.S., is only just reopening. So it's very early days to see how things will develop from here. But as we said, most of our audience is domestic across the portfolio as a whole. So clearly, we'd like international travel to be easier, and some of the shows is very, very important. But for others, it's less important.

Our next question is from the line of Nick Dempsey from Barclays. Please ask your question.

I've got three. So first one, in both Legal and STM divisions, we've got print shrinking pretty fast in the mix, and you've seen analytics style offerings. Your comment is pretty positive about those in the first half. But when we look forward beyond 2021, does that give you a bit of confidence that you might start to see slightly better organic revenue growth in those two divisions than you saw in 2011 to 2019? Second question, you mentioned ThreatMetrix and I think Emailage holding 30% organic revenue growth, but still maintaining very strong growth there. They must be getting a little bit larger in the mix. Aren't they at a level where, if they maintain that strong growth, they can actually move the needle on the whole of risk? And you could see that, that move up a bit. Or are they still too small to have much of an effect? And third question, so you mentioned the £50 million of revenue for Exhibitions in July. Can you give us a bit of context in terms of your slate of planned events for the second half, how important July is? So is it a big month in China and Japan? I think September through November are normally quite a big month for you, but I'd be interested to see some context on that £50 million.

I will hand the third question to Nick again here, but let me take the other two. In Legal and STM, you're absolutely right when you're saying that there has historically been a print drag. And in the first half, that print drag, you can calculate basically that typically in STM, that print drag might be about 10% of the business declining. So 10% worse than the average, showing an average here, [80] percentage point print drag in the first half, that was sort of absent this year because it was stabilizing. In Legal, the differences was -- the difference was much smaller in this year, so maybe not that material, but a little bit of a benefit. The real benefit that's driving the fundamental improvement in Legal and STM growth rates, the fundamental driver is what we talked about earlier and which has also been the main driver in the past of our strategy, which is the continued development and rollout of increasingly sophisticated analytics and decision tools that add more value to our customers. And because we are continuing to move that across our customer base, we already saw that coming through a bit an improved growth rates in the early part of 2020, which we highlighted in the beginning of last year. And then COVID pandemic hit, and I think many of our markets were slightly disrupted. And it feels that we're now heading back on that, improving trajectory on the electronic reference and decision tools side. Clearly, the print drag has a bit of an impact on the growth rate in any one six-month period. But over time, that print drag continues to shrink a little bit and while it's a little bit volatile. It should, over time, reduce, of course. And our objective is, in…

Yes. Nick, on the tone of Exhibitions, yes, I think July is normally a key month in the year for Exhibitions, given the sort of pattern of vacations and the like. But this year, it's certainly been our most active month. If you look forward, the exhibition industry, August is generally quiet. As you say, September to November, it would typically pick up again and that would be the busy period. So we clearly have a lot of events scheduled, but we'll have to see how markets open up and what -- which ones we're able to run. And at the moment, it's U.S., China, Japan and a few other countries, and we'll see whether we have the opportunity to run events elsewhere in the world.

Next question is from the line of Sam Kassab from Exane. Please ask your question.

I have two quick questions as well. The first one, we've seen your free cash flow up by £300 million. We've seen your leverage come down by half a turn. We've seen operations normalizing. So what other key criteria are you looking for in order to resume the share buyback program? Secondly, can you talk about the adoption of Lexis+? And to what extent is the improvement in new sales directly related to the rollout of Lexis+? And lastly, I think in February, you suggested that you were planning on running 75% of the shows that you had at Rx in 2019. Can you update us on that number? Are you still looking to run 75% of the shows or a smaller number?

Well, I will hand over to Nick to answer the questions -- the first question on cash flow, and you might as well also address the question of Exhibitions while you're at it. I'll come back and answer the second one.

Yes, Sami, on the share buyback, I mean, as you know, that's our mechanism for returning surplus capital to shareholders. Clearly, with the leverage having stepped up due to the reduction in the EBITDA that we had last year, we didn't have that service capital. Hence, the buyback was suspended, and we said we won't resume it in 2021. But as you pointed out, the leverage has come down. It's still above our historic range, but it's come down quite quickly. So we'll have to see how that evolves from here. Clearly, the rest of this year, exactly how the business performs and what acquisition spend we might have are probably the biggest variables. But we'll see and then we'll make a judgment for next year around that. But at the moment, obviously, leverage is still a little bit elevated focus on that. On your question on the number of events and exhibitions, I don't think we all said we were expecting to run [70,000]. I think we just said, well, that was the number in the calendar, to be clear. But they definitely won't happen if they're not in the calendar. It's lower than that now. Obviously, we've been rescheduling and pushing events to later in the year, but not all of them. There is a room in that calendar of the industry who serve to hold them all. So it's -- in terms of numbers, it's a fair bit lower than that now. But I think, as we said, the focus is on the markets where we can operate today and looking to see when other markets open and what opportunities we've got. There's plenty of events still in the calendar, but the key is the ability to operate in different countries, and we'll see how that develops.

And on Legal, Lexis+, as you know, was launched last year. It's been very well received by our customers. We continue to roll it out. And almost all new customers up for Lexis+. And I would say that when we have renewal conversations, the majority of our customers who renew also up for Lexis+. And as we've said, that's an integrated offering that integrates different types of analytical tools on different content. And when customers opt for that, they often use it so that they have increased access to and more usage of these different tools that are now integrated in a more easy-to-use way. And I do believe that the customer feedback and the success of that is a contributing factor, a significant contributing factor to the improvement that we've seen in new sales, and therefore, what we perceive as an improvement in the underlying growth trajectory of Legal.

May I follow up with two quick ones on Lexis+? When you see new customers opting for Lexis+, do you see new customers moving away from other established research platforms? Or are you gaining share with Lexis+ in your view? And secondly, when you see existing customers opt for Lexis+, do you see an increase in the ARPU of these customers?

Yes. When it comes to share of customers in the legal market, it's often more complicated than a straight share question because most of the large customers, most of our large law firm customers as well as corporate customers use us as well as other providers. And it's often a question for which purposes they use them and how much they use them. So it is not as central sort of are we taking or losing customers. That's often a small part of it. We believe that we are getting increased attention and increased usage and that our customers see increased utility and value from us. And I think that's the main driver. So when customers opt for Lexis+, they tend to, therefore, use a broader set of our analytical tools and content sets and therefore end up with an increased spend with us. We, of course, don't have direct insight into what their spending is with others, but -- so I won't comment on that.

And our next question is from Matthew Walker from Crédit Suisse. Please ask your question.

Congratulations on the results. First question is, I guess, the sustainability of the growth. You've been talking about precision tools analytics for a while. What is the sustainability of better growth compared to history going into next year and the year after that? The second question is on which products would you point to in analytics, which are driving the growth? And where are you on the adoption curve for those products? That would be interesting to know like clinical key or clinical partner, how many hospitals you're in, what percentage of doctors in the U.S. use this kind of stuff. And for some of your analytics tools at STM, what's the university penetration compared to the journal penetration, which obviously is probably nearly 100%? And then the final question is, are you roughly looking for breakeven on the event side? I know it's very unpredictable, but you're roughly looking for breakeven. That's a question for Nick on the event side for this year.

On the question of sustainability, we are driving the whole strategic direction of increasing and sophisticated analytics and decision tools that add more value across all our market segments and have been heading in that direction for a while. The reason we do that way is because we believe that, that is a sustainable strategic direction that, over time, will add more value to the customers and therefore that they would want to use more of our products and have more of our tools, and therefore, spend more with us because they get more value by spending more with us. Therefore, we, of course, believe that this is a sustainable strategy. There are always things that happen in the world at different times that we can't control such as what happened with the pandemic last year. So it's very hard to predict what exactly will happen in any one year. But we believe that this is a sustainable strategy that should lead to better organic growth over time. Of course, as I said, there are specific events this year's first half that may also have a slight impact, for example, the absence of the print track, which is a small contributor in STM, but there's still underlying fundamental improvement beyond that. When it comes to specific products, adoption curves percentages by each product or by each customer set, and it's not something that we are prepared to talk about in public because there are competitive products and we do serve our customers in competition with others. But if you say, where are we, in general, on this transition from reference to sophisticated analytics and decision tools, I continue to say that in the risk division in many of the risk markets, we might be 50%, 60%, 70% in that direction already, and we continue to move down that path. And there is significant growth in the end-user markets there that support that growth rate as well. When we talk about Legal and STM, it's quite possible that we're only for the 20%, 30% down that path in general at this point in time. So I do not believe we're at the beginning, but we're certainly not anywhere near the end. Nick, do you want to cover Exhibitions?

Yes. I'm not sure I'm going to give a precise profit forecast for Exhibitions for the second half of [indiscernible].

So our next question is from the line of Tom Singlehurst from Citi. Please ask your question.

It's Tom here from Citi. My line cut out a bit there, so I apologize if you can't hear me properly, but I had a couple of questions. One was on STM, and it was around open access volumes and submissions and the linkage with revenue. We've seen reports from some universities and consortia of universities that they're in danger of having sort of already used that full quota of bundled articles as part of transformative deals. I'm just wondering whether you can make any comments on whether this is a widespread phenomenon, whether that's helping sort of short-term volumes and revenues from OA journals and/or whether that's likely to come through incrementally in the second half and beyond. So that was the first question. And then second question on events. I recognize this year is highly unusual. But just you talk about flexible management of the remaining 2021 schedule. I'm just interested in what proportion of events you would say are running at the right time of year and how important it is that events get back in sync, i.e., that they not only happen, but they happen at the right time of year and how critical that is to recovering revenues.

I will again let Nick cover the second question on Exhibitions, but let me first answer the STM question. Yes, as we said this morning, the open access volumes of articles published for the first half of this year continued to grow very strongly for us. That was basically around 50% increase in the articles published so far this year over last year. And what we are seeing is an increase in submissions and in articles published across our full offering of alternative ways to publish open access of the pace, both in terms of customer sets and in terms of geographies and in terms of journals. And as I said, we launched another 55 stand-alone open access journals that we believe that the increase that we are in is partly due to the overall market growing and partly due to our increasing market share. So of course, there are some customers in there that have specific agreements of number of articles and so on. I think the overall numbers for us, that is not a significant proportion or a material factor in the general trend we are seeing.

And Tom, on the Events question, I mean, you're right. The schedule is quite disrupted in terms of exactly when things are taking place compared to normal. Sometimes, we'll find a new date works just fine and just break out on with it. But typically, the dates are important for the relatively relevant industries overall schedule and program and how it all fits together. So typically, you'd be looking to get them back to the quite normal time of year. But it is depending which events do take place this year. It's pretty disrupted in terms of timing, but everyone understands that and it's work like that. So I think customers are very supportive of us doing that if we can still hold a good event for them. So -- but we'll most likely -- most of them will be moving back at some point.

Okay. Very clear.One -- well, 1.5 follow-ups. On the -- you talked about 50% increase in articles published. I was wondering whether you have a similar figure for the growth in submission for OA. And then on the event side, I mean, do you think it will take all the way through to 2023 to get everything back to the right time of year that -- is that possible in 2022 as well?

When it comes to the submissions in the first half this year to sort of open access submissions, we had a significant jump last year. I think it almost doubled because we had such a large spike in the beginning -- in the middle of the year, I should say, from the middle of the first half all the way towards the middle of the second half. But even on top of those numbers, I think order of magnitude, about 25%. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but it's roughly that on open access submissions above the numbers that had that very high spike in the first half last year.

And then how long does it take to get back to the normal calendar? I think it will depend on exactly what happens in the remainder of this year to start with and which events do take place and if they've taken place at an unusual time of year for that particular event and what that means for '22. If you throw in cycling events as well that take place every year, then it will take a little bit of time to adjust everything and get the calendar back, but assuming sort of normal operating conditions and I think we'll have to see how things evolve.

Next question is from the line of Matti Littunen from Bernstein. Please ask your question.

First question on ThreatMetrix and Emailage. Now since your identity resolution tools don't rely on third-party cookies as far as I understand, do you think you've had a bit of an additional growth tailwind as the market is expecting the removal of third-party cookies? And then on Legal, could you just remind us of what are the main customer segments for LexisNexis as you see them? And is that perhaps one or two of them where you see yourself as having a particularly strong market and/or product position?

I would actually like to make sure you can explain or repeat your second question there. It wasn't absolutely clear to me. Could you do that again?

Yes, of course. On Legal, could you remind us what the main customer segments for LexisNexis are as you see them? And then if there are any of them where you see yourself having perhaps a bit of a stronger market or product position relatively.

Okay. Now I understand. On the first question, in digital identity verification, our digital identity tools are very sophisticated and very embedded in their recognition of devices. And in some of these examples, there are tools that are used and embedded within a financial services institution, for example. And last time we talked about these numbers in public, we had order magnitude a bit over 100 million times a day that devices were actually being pinged or checked with a couple of hundred different digital identity characteristics that are being checked on that device and how that device is behaving and how it has behaved previously in the database of several billions of devices that we have in our system. So it's a very deep sophisticated technological device and software recognition tool. I do not believe personally that makes sort of a cookie trend that is going on at the moment, has had a significant impact or will have a significant impact going forward. That's, of course, a personal opinion. On Legal, the main customer segment, the way we look at it is, of course, we said 2/3 of Legal is in the U.S. and 1/3 is international, of course, are large in the U.K., France, Australia, for example, some of those countries. Inside the U.S., we have law firms and we have large law firm segment. We have a smaller law firm segment. We also have corporate legal customers, and we have sort of state and government in the U.S. state, the local government as well as federal government customers. So we operate across a broad range of customer sets there. Traditionally, we often talk mostly about the law firm customers, but there are several other customer segments as well that use our legal tools and, in particular, the legal analytics and decision tools more and more because they help them manage their litigation costs, they help them manage their legal exposure, help them manage the legal decision-making around those. So it is actually a relatively broad range of customer segments.

Just to clarify on that first point about ThreatMetrix and Emailage. Now I understand the sophistication of the tools. So my question was actually, have you had a positive impact from the impending cookie removal as perhaps clients recognize the relative strength of your identity resolution versus solutions that rely more on cookies?

I actually do believe that the kind of solution we offer is not directly comparable to the ones with cookies. So I do not believe that there has been a significant impact on that, because I think we have so far competed in a different segment. So I don't think it has been a significant factor, and I don't believe it is likely to be a significant factor. But as I said, that's my personal opinion and interpretation of the market and the audience as opposed to any data I can give you.

Next question is from Patrick Wellington from Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question.

Three questions. First one, we've talked about market share gains in STM. Do you think that's a product of your shift -- your greater shift towards reading published deals and open access? You're taking share clearly in open access. You're talking about taking share in subscription. Why are you taking share, if you like? And does it extend to your database businesses? If I look at people like Clarivate, they have sort of high single-digit growth aspirations in the databases and tools business. Do you have similar? That's the first question, which was around STM. The second one, I think you may have answered this partly in Matthew's question, but the line was a bit garbled. So what percentage of the revenues in STM and Legal would you say are now represented by the decision tools and analytics activities? And then my third question is around exhibitions and it's kind of got three parts, really. The first one is, I'm sure Nick gave us the likely profit number for the year, but again, the line seemed to cut out momentarily. So if you could give it to us again? Secondly, on revenue, if July is a £50 million month, could we just simply say, well, August will be about £25 million; September, October, November; about £75 million each; and December, £50 million again? And we would get to about a short £475 million, £500 million for the year. Would that be a reasonable assumption? And then my final one on Exhibitions is, Erik, can you update us on its role within the group? You like a nice subscription-based reliable business. You like to be a regular compounder as a group. Exhibition has got a lot of very good characteristics. Return on invested capital is very good, but RELX has been producing organic revenue growth numbers for 25 years now since 1996 roughly. And you've had six down years in exhibitions in terms of organic growth in that period, including the last two. So does a business that with a sort of 6 out of 25 sort of miss rate, if you like, does that sit happily within the RELX Group?

I'll start by addressing the STM and Legal questions, and then we'll hand over the Exhibitions to Nick. I'll come back and talk about the last question after that. So market share in STM, why do I believe we have an increase in market -- increased market share? I believe that when it comes to -- in primary research publishing, which is really, I think, what you're asking about first, where in the subscription side, we have had a very high quality set of journals with high quality across many market segments, and we continue to launch and spin-off journals in pockets where we have had less of a presence over time. And as we have said before, our objective is in each one of those segments to offer higher quality content and better technology to the platform tools and to do that at a better value or lower effective price to our customers than other major providers. And I believe that if you continue to do that systematically with the scale that we have, it should be reasonable to continue to increase your market share a little bit on an ongoing basis. And I think we continue to do that this year on the subscription side. When it comes to open access, the main driver of that is that we have now applied that methodology for the last few years, also the spinning off and creating of our pace open access journals as well as other types of open access publishing alternatives across the different market segments and the different quality tiers, and we are approaching that with a similar strategy, which is, again, to target higher quality, better platform technology tools and a much effective better value than other major providers. And because we started to do that,…

And Patrick, I'm sure you didn't miss me giving a profit forecast for Exhibitions for the remainder of the year. The way I was characterizing it was that, obviously, we had the loss in the first half. But from what we said, you could tell that actually was in the first quarter. We've been roughly breaking even since then on the basis of the markets that are now open. And we'll have to see what happens through the remainder of the year in terms of other markets opening up or not. And that's -- we don't know and we don't know what restrictions will be in place at the time when events in -- even in the markets we are open today and indeed the markets that have yet to open. We don't know what those restrictions will be when we get there. So we'll have to see, but we have been running at that breakeven position for a few months now. My answer to your revenue question is much the same. It will depend. You can obviously do anything that you want. If you want to try and create a forecast for revenue in the second half in Exhibitions, and it will depend on the event calendar in which events -- what the particular circumstances are in each of those geographies when those events come up. So we'll have to see.

Okay. On Exhibitions' role within RELX, as you know, Exhibitions, as Nick said, Exhibitions has been, over time, a good contributor on average to organic revenue growth and good returns on invested capital, both in terms of organic development and acquisitions the way we've done it. Before the pandemic hit, we transferred over several people and several functions from the risk division over to exhibitions so that we could see if we could accelerate the drive in the exhibition industry towards using more sophisticated datasets, more sophisticated analytics and digital decision tools to improve the value, to increase the value that we provide to our customer businesses and help them do business better. That was the objective, and we thought that would be a 5- to 10-year journey. And I think the pandemic might have accelerated that digital transition and the use of digital tools and the value of data analytics in that industry. We will not know if that transition is working as we had hoped or if it has accelerated for a few more years, because at this point, we're 100% focused on supporting our customers through the pandemic and coming out of the pandemic. But in a few years, I think this will be an interesting question to address again when the exhibition market has come back, and we see how well the digital tools and the analytics and decision support tools have developed in that segment. To Nick's point though, for the next few years, we're very focused on supporting our customers with the Exhibition division, the way we have it right now and the way we're pushing digital solutions and analytics in the division to our customers at the moment.

And our last question will be coming from Rajesh Kumar from HSBC. Please ask your question.

Just on the first half growth. Can I clarify that when you say transactional picked up, you're not suggesting that there's a delayed revenue from second half last year, which have moved to first half? Can you just confirm that in STM, in Risk and in Legal, the growth we're seeing is specific in Q2 terms, that does not include a large flush of active demand from 2020? The second question is a follow up on the Exhibition side. Just on -- when you talk to your division heads, what sort of color are they getting on forward bookings in the sense of the interest from various participants for 2021? Are you seeing the same level of discussion that they were seeing towards end of 2020? Or is it too early to tell on that one? And just on the ThreatMetrix comment you made earlier that the growth is likely to slow as the base growth that I'm sure even mathematical certainty, if -- but are you implying that the dollar growth would slow? Or are you saying the dollar growth remains similar, but what you see is against a larger base, you start seeing lower percent growth?

Okay. I will hand the second question to Nick. But first, I'll answer the number one and number three there. We do not believe that there's any delayed revenue or backlog that artificially inflated the first half of 2021 in any material way or in any specific segment. That's not something we have noticed. So we believe that the revenue growth is what it is and represented in the first half. When it comes to ThreatMetrix, I do not believe in any way that the dollar revenue growth will slow. The only reason I'm saying that the percentage point growth might fade somewhat over time is that even though it's a fast-growing segment, it's a very attractive segment. We have a very clear leading position, and we're doing very well as a business gets bigger and bigger and bigger. The very high percentage points growth are naturally going to be more and more difficult to sustain on a percentage point basis. We do not believe in any way that the dollar growth should slow. It's not the direction of travel that we hope that we'll be on.

And your second question, Rajesh, on forward bookings and exhibitions. No, we are seeing good appetite actually for people wanting to come to face-to-face events. The customers are generally keen to see the events go ahead when we are able to hold them. They're generally working well for them. Clearly, the uncertainty is an issue for people in terms of booking and knowing that they can -- whether the event is going to go ahead or not. And depending on what industry you're talking about, sometimes the lead times do get ready for the event and take your tool to the event and have your product there. It's longer and sometimes it's shorter, so that can affect people. Generally speaking, there's good appetite. The key variable is are we able to hold the event given the restrictions that are relevant to that particular location?

There are no further questions at this time. Please continue.

Well, thank you all for joining us on our call today, and I look forward to talking to you again soon. Thank you.

Thank you, speakers. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect. Speakers, please stand by.