Welcome to the Barclays 2014 Half Year Results Fixed Income Analyst and Investor Conference Call. I will now hand you over to Tushar Morzaria, Group Finance Director.

Good afternoon, and welcome to our interim results fixed income call. The purpose of this call is to provide our fixed income investors and analysts with the opportunity to hear about our half year results and to do so in a way that is relevant to your interests, and to have the opportunity to ask any questions. I'm joined here by Dan Hodge, our Group Treasurer; and Steven Penketh, our Head of Capital Market Execution. For those of you who dialed into the main results call this morning, you'd have heard me talk at some length about our half year financial performance. So let me provide a brief summary here. Group adjusted profit was GBP 3.3 billion in H1, down 7%, and that was driven largely by a 12% reduction in income to GBP 13.3 billion, primarily in the Investment Bank. Without the headwinds from foreign exchange movements, our group-adjusted profit in this half would have been up 5% year-on-year. We increased income in Personal and Corporate Banking, or PCB, and Barclaycard, and Africa Banking was up on a constant currency basis. Impairments for the first half of 2014 improved by 33% to GBP 1.1 billion. And we continue to make good progress on reducing operating expenses, and the total group cost base fell by 9% to GBP 8.9 billion. That was driven by improvements across all businesses, included in this our cost to achieve charges, which were GBP 494 million in the half. Within these group numbers are core and non-core business performance, which I'll also cover briefly. Our core businesses performed well, and we generated an ROE of 11%. Profits in PCB and Barclaycard increased by 23% and 24%, respectively, and Africa Banking was up as well on a constant currency basis. Investment Bank performance continues to be impacted by challenging trading conditions, especially in the markets businesses, but its performance is broadly as we expected. So headline core adjusted profits were just over GBP 3.8 billion for the half. On costs, the significant progress we made in Q1 continued in the second quarter. Core operating expenses in H1 were GBP 7.9 billion, and that's down over 4% on last year. Excluding CTA charges, we reduced expenses by 7% year-on-year. Impairment in our core businesses improved by 13%, driven by PCB and Africa, contributing to the group loan loss rate of 45 basis points. We continue to see favorable credit risk metrics, and we expect conditions to remain broadly stable in the near term. For the full year, I've seen the implied consensus impairment for the overall group in H2, which I'm broadly comfortable with. Our non-core unit reported declines in income, impairment and costs, as expected. That resulted in a decrease in attributable loss from GBP 619 million to GBP 464 million. And as you know, we expect operating losses to continue through our planning period to 2016. But managing the capital requirement of non-core is as important as managing the operating losses. And I'm pleased to report that we have had a strong start in running down assets in Barclays Non-Core. Since the start of the year, we reduced non-core RWAs by GBP 22 billion to GBP 87 billion, mostly driven by sales and pay-downs. The result of the reduced loss and lower allocated capital is that the drag on group ROE was 4.5% compared to 7.4% for the full year 2013, and we're pleased with that. Turning to Slide 4 and our strong credit fundamentals. In the first half of 2014, we generated GBP 1.2 billion of capital from profits in the period despite headwinds from GBP 900 million of PPI provisions. After regulatory deductions, dividends and other reserve movements, retained regulatory capital generated from earnings increased CET1 by GBP 400 million. You have seen that our 2013 full year RWA estimates have been revised to GBP 442 billion as a consequence of a point-in-time adjustment to our earlier CRD IV RWA estimate. This revision has come as a consequence of regulatory filings made in June and had a circa 15-basis-point impact on full year and first quarter's CET1 ratios. Our fully-loaded CRD IV CET1 ratio has increased, as a consequence, by 80 basis points to 9.9% on a like-for-like basis. This reflects the underlying ability of our businesses to generate capital and our success in reducing RWAs. We expect to progressively accrete capital and further reduce RWAs in subsequent quarters, and we're well on our way to our 2016 target of over 11% CET1. Our PRA leverage ratio has also continued to improve, finishing H1 at 3.4%. That's comfortably above the PRA request of 3%, with a reduction of GBP 99 billion in leverage exposure over these 6 months. And so with that, I'd like to hand over to Dan to take you through our capital, liquidity and funding plans in more detail, after which we'll take your questions.

Thanks, Tushar, and good afternoon, everyone. For the rest of this call, we'll focus on what we see as the key takeaways for the fixed income investor community. I'll give you our views on capital, funding and liquidity, as well as touching on regulatory reform. I'm pleased to say that the bank continues to make good progress on a number of key balance sheet metrics, and not least, on leverage, where we successfully exceeded the minimum 3% leverage request set by the PRA in July last year. Our updated strategy rebalances the group's earnings and is expected to improve its financial strength and performance over time. A smaller investment bank and less volatile earnings are good from both capital and liquidity management perspective. Capital leverage progression are embedded in the group's plans and articulated in the financial commitments we have made to the market. From a treasury perspective, our focus is on implementing robust capital funding and liquidity plans that capture the diversification benefits of the group, while also maintaining flexibility in order to meet still evolving regulatory requirements in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Let me start then with the progressive strengthening of our capital and leverage on Slide 6. Our capital glide path requires an underlying trend of capital accretion of on average 50 basis points per annum. That's the equivalent of GBP 2 billion of retained earnings net of dividends per annum even without the effects of further RWA reduction. In practice, we continue to target a net reduction of RWAs over the next few years in addition to such capital accretion. There will be some volatility on a quarter-by-quarter basis, as you might expect, but the more important factor is the sustained annual trajectory. Our fully loaded CET1 ratio has already increased to 9.9% in the first half of 2014 from 9.1%, and that represents strong progress. As Tushar has said, we're on target for CET1 ratio of greater than 11% by 2016. Given the ongoing conduct and litigation risk, we have factored in general overlays to capital accretion into our plans. We're confident we can still meet our desired glide path. Leverage exposure reductions in the first half of 2014 of GBP 99 billion have come from derivative efficiencies, principally in the non-core Investment Bank by a reduction in derivative PFE and regulatory exposure for repos, partially offset by an increase in settlement balances. In June 2014, the PRA updated the supervisory statement through '13, requiring Barclays and the other major U.K. banks and building societies to move to 3% fully-loaded leverage ratio on a revised BCBS basis from 1 July 2014 onwards. This ratio calculation does not include the headwind deductions that featured in the PRA leverage ratio. On the stricter BCBS fully-loaded ratio definition of leverage, the group already estimates a 3.4% ratio, demonstrating the business' continued ability to absorb regulatory change. We intend to run the business on a BCBS leverage ratio of greater than 4% by the end of 2016, and we expect to achieve that through a balance of capital accretion and reduction of leverage exposures in the non-core business and the core Investment Bank, with such reductions more than offset planned growth in PCB, cards and Africa. We've made good progress on reducing leverage exposure to date, and we're on track to meet the levels of deleveraging set out in our 8 May strategic announcement for end of 2016. Should end state regulation require the group to meet a higher requirements, we can go further. We manage the business to optimize between both capital and leverage constraints, and we have the tools and flexibility to adapt. Our deleveraging will enable us to meet legal entity, as well as consolidated leverage requirements. The primary example of this is the U.S., where reductions in our repo book will enable us to meet U.S. intermediate holding company leverage requirements. The successful execution of our legacy Tier 1 capital exchange in June, which created GBP 2.3 billion of new additional Tier 1 capital, had a 17-basis-point impact on the leverage ratio, and demonstrates further progress in our planned transition to our end state capital structure, which I'll now turn to. Moving to Slide 7, our total capital ratio at the half year was 16% on a PRA-transitional basis and 15% on a fully-loaded basis. After Tier 1 exchange, we're over halfway to meeting our currently assumed 2% AT1 target, with GBP 4.3 billion of qualifying AT1 securities outstanding and GBP 4.6 billion, where minority interests are included. The exchange allowed us both to retire some of our legacy Tier 1 instruments that have less regulatory capital value on the CRD IV and to transition our capital stock further to holdco. We have guided previously that we'd expect to issue most of our capital after holdco as we move towards the Bank of England's expectations of a single point of entry model. This remains the case. Our first issuance of Tier 2 from holdco was unfortunately delayed in mid-execution as a consequence of the filing of the New York Attorney General's dark pool complaint, to which we have now responded. This was regrettable from a timing perspective, but the decision not proceed was taken in the interest of investors and the wider market, and it was justified by the immediately ensuing negative spread movement in our subordinated debt. As mentioned previously, we continue to target an end-state total capital ratio, perhaps CET1, AT1 and Tier 2 of at least 17% for planning purposes until we have further clarity from the FSB for International GLAC requirements. We'll continue to issue after holdco, knowing it is likely that the GLAC requirements will be above 17% given the 20% to 25% range that is expected. We've updated the market on the impacts on our end-state capital structure and its interaction with GLAC when the regulatory position becomes clearer. GLAC is an important component of the overall capital structure of all systemically important banks in a structurally reformed world, but it's not the only driver of our final capital requirements or its allocation within the group. Barclays' ringfence bank will be a material entity within the U.K. banking system, and it will have standalone capital and leverage requirements, which may be higher than those at the group consolidated level. Our thinking on the size and scope of the ringfence bank is evolving, and we'll be in a position to communicate our plans more fully when we have further clarity on regulation via secondary legislation passing through parliament currently, and subsequently, more detailed regulatory rules from the PRA. From what we see currently, we believe this is a manageable issue for Barclays. In addition to this, we're working on the shape and structure of our U.S. intermediate holding company and will submit our plan to the Fed by 1 January 2015. It's important for the bank to have a clear view of the whole group structure before guiding on any individual components. And so we expect to come back to the market next year to provide guidance on the overall end state corporate structure of the group once we have broad sign-off on those plans. I'll turn now to Slide 8 on liquidity before finishing on funding and opening up the call for Q&A. Liquidity pool assets increased over the half year from GBP 127 billion to GBP 134 billion, meeting Barclays' liquidity risk capitalized framework and in excess of regulatory requirements. This relatively modest increase was due to accelerated deleveraging. The liquidity pool remains high quality. Cash and deposits held at central banks accounted for 31% of the liquidity pool, while the 52% of the pool comprised of government securities. 44% were very liquid obligations, predominantly at the U.K., Germany and U.S. The liquid asset pool of 30 June '14 represented 107% of the liquidity required to meet our internal 30-day Barclays-specific stress. That represents a buffer of GBP 9 billion above our internal minimum stress outflows. The estimated LCR was also 110% at H1, equating to a GBP 9 billion excess on the expected CRD IV design 100% standard for 2018. The LCR has increased primarily as a result of growing liquidity pool and extending the tenure of wholesale unsecureds and repo refinancing. The liquidity pool is also GBP 50 billion larger than our proportion of wholesale debt that matures in less than 1 year. Our weighted average maturity of wholesale funds, net of liquidity pool, was at least 80 months at H1 compared to 69 months at the full year. Our longer-term funding structure also remains robust. Our estimated NSFR in H1 2014 increased from 110% to 113% under the CRD IV calculation. It also increased to 98% from 95% under the latest BCBS definition. We expect to exceed 100% well before the 1 January 2018 compliance date, as repo funding on the non-core bank declines. Moving on to funding on Slide 9. We use 2 measures for the loan-to-deposit ratio in the management of our asset liability profile. The LDR for the group, including wholesale-funded businesses, trading investment balances and cash collateral was 100%. And that compared to 101% at the end of 2013, showing continued balance across deposit and wholesale funding. The loan-to-deposit ratio for PCB, non-core retail, Barclaycard and Africa was broadly unchanged for the half year at 92%. This ratio is very close to 100% when the contributions of liquidity pool for those businesses is included, making them broadly self-funded. During H1, we were very active in wholesale funding markets, and we successfully completed GBP 9 billion of term funding net of early redemption, plus GBP 6 billion raised through participation in the Bank of England Funding for Lending Scheme. We completed 8 public benchmark senior unsecured transactions in the first half of the year in U.S. dollars, euro, Australian dollar and yen. We saw consistently strong investor demand for these transactions. We're pleased that we can continue to access diverse funding markets after a period of time focused on capital transactions. In secured, we successfully issued $1.3 billion from our U.S. credit card business, and continue to attract significant new investors to Dry Rock, the newest of our funding platforms. We recently also issued GBP 750 million from our U.K. card securitization platform, Gracechurch. Our overall stock of wholesale funding, however, continues to fall as we delever the balance sheet. We have GBP 12 billion of term funding maturing in the remainder of this year. You can expect us to look for issuance opportunities across unsecured, secured and capital and still be materially below overall maturities for the year of GBP 24 billion. The precise content mix will depend on market conditions and the progress we're able to make in the sell-down of non-core assets, as we look to maintain a stable and diverse funding base by type, currency and distribution channel. Funding and liquidity continues to be managed centrally to the overall benefit of the group, costs to allocate it from head office to businesses through our funds transfer pricing model. Capital and funding instruments are not individually allocated. The deleveraging of our balance sheet will ultimately lead to lower absolute wholesale funding requirements. So with significant levels of maturing debt, future GLAC requirements to plan for and supportive market conditions, you can expect it to continue to be a regular issuer. So let me conclude on Slide 10 before handing back to Tushar, who will open the call up to Q&A. Both the strategy update in May and the constant changes we're making to the business, Barclays continues to focus on maintaining a core set of businesses to deliver less volatile performance, with a clear trajectory of capital, leverage and ROE ratio improvements for the group. We continue to benefit from the diversity of the businesses in Barclays portfolio, and we're positioning ourselves for future growth through the managed sell-down of non-core. We're conscious the significant work still requires to meet the requirements of structural reform in a way that manages the expectations of all our stakeholders. However, we continue to be confident in our ability to adapt, and the changes we're making at a consolidated and legal entity level will ensure we meet our requirements, as illustrated by the reduction in our secured financing book to meet bank consolidated and U.S. IHC leverage requirements and by our issuance of AT1 out to the holdco. Our financial commitments are underpinned by robust capital, liquidity and funding plan that can adapt to changing business and regulatory environments. Our liquidity pool remains large with high quality and in excess of increasing regulatory requirements. Our term funding continues to be diverse with new issuance well received by the market. We strengthened our capital position, and we're well on our way to our 2016 target of over 11% CET1. We've exceeded the PRA leverage request over the past 12 months and are already in excess of the 3% leverage requirement calculated on the BCBS go-forward basis. We aim to deliver a leverage ratio above 4% in 2016, with a flexible plan to adapt to higher requirements in end-state, if required. So in summary, while we have further to go in delivering our 2016 targets, our progress to-date has been strong. And we remain confident in meeting those targets. Tushar, back to you.

Thank you. And with that, I'd like to open the call to questions. And as a reminder, we are joined here by Dan Hodge, our Group Treasurer; and Steven Penketh, our Head of Execution of capital and term funding. So with that, operator, do we have any questions?

[Operator Instructions] Our first question today comes from Carlo Mareels of RBC.

I had a quick question on the Pillar 2A equity component. I was wondering whether that's actually part of the combined buffer or if that needs to be seen outside of the combined buffer? That's the first one. And secondly, if you have any view that you can share on potential future buffers that may come in such as the countercyclical or sectoral buffers that may increase further capital requirements from the current levels?

Thanks, Carlo. Why don't I hand that to Dan? Dan, do you want to answer that?

Yes, sure. Let me cover both of those. So the first question was around Pillar 2A and whether or not that forms part of the combined buffer. So it's not the expectation that it forms part of the combined buffer. What it is obviously likely to do is to increase the sort of the, I suppose, the minimum regulatory target levels. But the significance of it not being part of the combined buffer actually relates to, I think, the second part of your question, which is around the PRA buffer. So the PRA will basically make a determination of the potential sort of capital hit to the bank in a stress environment, and in a situation where they adjust it, the amount of that stress is higher than the combined buffer, which to remind, for Barclays is 4.5% through the G-SIFI plus the conservation buffer, then they basically could seek to apply that PRA buffer on top of the 4.5%. In terms of the second sort of question around our expectations of future buffers, well, let me start by answering around countercyclical. Obviously, this is something that the regulator authorities are going to determine rather than ourselves. There are sort of specific articles in CRD IV that detail how it should be calculated. And the authorities require to link the buffer on to the extent of credit advancements in the economy. So when sort of deciding the rate, so -- which the FPC has obviously already done in keeping in at 0, they've sort of focused historically on credit growth, but also other indicators such as bank leverage and financial markets. So although credit levels in the U.K. are high, the credit to GDP has actually been persistently weak since the crisis, and hence, it remaining at 0%. So what I would say is that if it were announced, you basically get your 12 months advance notice, so we would be at 11% before it took effect. I'd also say about the countercyclical buffer, it's kind of the right way, if you like, because we should be accumulating earnings in an environment where we're having a pickup in sort of credit to the GDP. The other one about sort of sectoral, that's sort of another, I suppose, tool which the PRA has to focus on specific sectors. So an obvious one might be the housing market, for instance. Again, we don't sort of have any anticipations that that will be used at this current stage, so I think the key point really to take from this is that we will manage an internal buffer above the sum of all regulatory targets. And so when we talk about our end-state level sort of 11.5% to 12%, what that really constitutes is the sum of all of these various sources of minima buffers, plus an internal buffer for prudential purposes.

The next question is from Robert Smalley of UBS.

Also, first, on Slide 7, and I, too, appreciate the disclosure on Pillar 2A and requirements there, particularly as it pertains to the contingent capital markets. You have an AT1 number -- evolution of AT1's going currently at GBP 4.3 billion. You had said, with the minority interest, that goes up to GBP 4.7 billion and the target end-state capital at 2%. Does that translate into another GBP 3.8 billion to GBP 4 billion equivalent AT1s over the period, so bringing your total to about GBP 8 billion outstanding? Am I in the right order of magnitude there?

Yes, Robert, and you're welcome about us trying to arrange a call so it's suitable for folks in the U.S. time zone as well. Yes, you're right. And as a longer term matter, we'd like to run the company at about GBP 400 billion of risk-weighted assets. So you get to roughly GBP 8 billion of total AT1 targets. So you're in the right ballpark, somewhere around GBP 4 billion still to go.

Okay. So -- and translating that into interest expense, that would be roughly GBP 325 million a year of extra interest expense?

Yes, I mean, somewhat driven by the coupon levels on future issuance, which perhaps Steven might give us a more color on.

Yes. So obviously, as Tushar said, it depends entirely on what the coupons are and the bonds and what you swap back, as well as time, where swap levels are. The other thing I would also mention is we have no particular hurry in the context of raising additional Tier 1 requirement. So as far as the net interest cost is concerned, that's going to be spread effectively upon the asset you're creating as well at the same time throughout that process. And so you can't look at it on a spot basis today and load that cost on top of where the bank is. And obviously, the other thing to mention is that AT1 is tax deductible as well in the U.S.

Right, right, great. You had mentioned the exchange, and the take-up was very good for some tranches and a little less for others. What are your plans on essentially the stub outstandings there? And if you were to go and do another tender, how would the regulators look at the terms? And by that I mean, would they look at a repeat of the same terms as something that is possible? Or would they say, "Look, the investors have gotten a bite of that apple already. You should tighten the terms next time." How do they think about looking at that kind of thing?

I think that the response I would give to that is that the target securities were obviously legacy Tier 1 capital securities that we know we'll never qualify on the CRD IV because they don't have the requisite contractual write-down provisions in them. The terms that we offered we thought were fair. It's about striking a balance between where trading levels are, about what you think is a fair market premium at a point in time. And then it's just open to the investors to whether they would accept the uptake because effectively, it's a 1:1 exchange between new legacy to new AT1. It's not something which ultimately is driven by a big regulatory concern. It's just a matter for us a personal sort of house-cleansing of legacy capital securities we wanted to get CRD IV benefit for the exchange security that we're actually going to issue. If there is a subsequent exercise going forward, there's no certainty around take-up like there is and any of them exercises. It's just going to be a market dialogue between us, with issuers and the premium we strike, and whether investors find it attractive or not.

Okay. If I could just ask 1 or 2 quick questions on funding. I'm on Page 36 of the release today. And in the table, on the senior unsecured privately placed line, there's -- I've got GBP 13.4 billion less than 1 year maturing. And just seeing the amount that you're planning on raising, are you finding that what was placed privately before is not being placed privately now given lower rates and tighter spreads? Is that how the funding is evolving more from what you did privately to publicly?

Dan, you want to take that?

Yes, and I think at sort of a lower rate environment, it's definitely a factor here in terms of influencing the scale of the demand for what we sort of term structured notes and medium-term notes. I would also say that obviously, historically, Barclays's been very dependent on that particular class. And I think going forward, we wouldn't sort of think to be as dependent. It's not yet clear that these sort of forms of paper to fee structure notes will qualify as GLAC. So this is partly -- it's very absolute, partly supply-driven, as well as demand-driven. And that said, we still see this as a very valuable funding source. So we'll be regular issuers.

Okay. And last one, you had mentioned GLAC. Any concerns or questions about that getting done by Brisbane? It seems that everything's pointing to that. Is that all on track?

It's -- from our perspective, we just follow the developments as and when statements come out from the relevant regulatory community. Brisbane, I think, is going to deliver something on GLAC. Whether it's the final word on GLAC is yet to be determined. We will just follow the debate and anticipate any actions we need to take out the back of that greater clarity, and also, of course, feed into any consultation papers that come out as well in the due course.

The next question is from Corinne Cunningham of Autonomous.

A couple of quick ones, I think. First one is the timing of the U.K. stress test. I guess it's going to be after that EBA and ECB stress tests, but do you have any idea when that might be completed, and if and when we get to hear what the results are or if it's just a more generic statement from the Bank of England?

Yes, we've submitted our input into the stress test in terms of running the scenarios and submitting our results into the PRA, and we've also done the same for the EBA. I'll hand over to Dan, but our expectation is that the PRA will report back on the stress-test findings sometime late in the fourth quarter. But, Dan, do you want to give any more color than that?

I have to say no. I heard November was the latest expectation, which will come out after the EBA.

The bank-by-bank results, do you know?

Yes. Well, I mean, I haven't come and said they'll be giving that level of detail. I mean, certainly, the EBA will be doing so on a bank-by-bank basis. Historically, the Bank of England haven't done that, and it's not clear at this stage whether or not they will be departing from that. We don't have any information to suggest they will depart from that. If you recall what happened last year, when they were looking at the sort of the shortfall on a sort of a post-stress basis to the FPC, 7%, that was sort of very much done in the aggregate across the U.K. banking sector. So we may see something like that again.

Okay. I had another small question. This one was on the deductions for own capital health, these own AT1s. So there's a big deduction at the year-end, much smaller deduction as of H1. But how much of your own securities do you own? And how does that come about? Where are they held? Is it in client funds or is it on the trading book?

Yes, you obviously see that, that number sort of came right down. So it's a very, very small residual amount that continues to be held. And the regional numbers came down before. Actually, the number at the end of the year was a little bit sort of conservative. We had a lot more improved visibility and time to go through the numbers. We've previously -- we looked at a lot of fund investments and had taken a conservative assumption in terms of portion of those funds that was Barclays' own stock, it proves to be overly conservative. We've also sort of unwound some of our own sort of internal hedging arrangements around share awards. We do have some residual amounts. And it's really through index trading activity to answer the question, but that is really subject to some very tight internal limits because obviously, it does cause a 1:1 deduction.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question is from Gildas Surry of BNP Paribas.

I just would like to hear your thinking on the leverage ratio consultation and the impact it could have on some additional triggers on the AT1s whether for the conversion of the write-down, also the restrictions on the MDA?

Dan, you want to cover?

Yes, sure. So talking about the CP, mean, it's important we don't get too far ahead of ourselves. This is just a consultation paper and recall also there are no sort of calibration proposed what's in there with mainly concerns with methodology, bringing leverage into line with capital by having great minima plus buffers. That said, in terms of sort of impacts on the AT1 market, what I suppose -- thoughts around that. Firstly, size could impact the total amount in issue, especially it's a good thing AT1s for any reason didn't count, although that absolutely isn't recommended in the paper. I would say that there's a possibility in the sense of having quite a lot of complexity. If you have distribution restriction on falling into leverage buffer. Again, that wasn't made explicit in the CP, but you could see there may be a potential outcome. Then it's sort of not -- it's not really clear how the sort of CRD IV MDA regime, which was sort of designed to capital ratio to be and I'd say legally applied to leverage ratio. CRD IV was sort of the maximum harmonization directive after all. It is possible, of course, that PRA sort of introduce some form of restrictions if you went into those buffers using general credential powers. And if that's so, the market needs to adapt to this by getting sort of comfortable with that. And clearly, it's another reason why sort of banks would seek to hold buffers above those regulatory buffers. And the points around -- could leverage triggers potentially be added to AT1? Again, I repeat, that wasn't recommended. If that did happen, I think that would be very complex, the idea of dual triggers. And we'll make the same point around sort of maximum harmonization directly because I don't how that actually gets sort of implemented in practice. We'll monitor the outcome of the CP and react accordingly.

Yes, the only thing I'd add to that is that as a principle, we'll try and be as anticipatory as we can with any future regulatory developments. And to the extent we can anticipate them, we will manage ourselves, such that we're well ahead of that part of that. Obviously, you can see from our leverage ratio, objective is trying to ensure that we're ahead of any developments in either space or anything else. So hopefully, that answers your question.

Yes. If I just may follow up. So just to be clear, the current terms and conditions of the existing AT1s would not allow moving or introducing another trigger that would not be based on certainty, so to be clear?

That's right. Just to reiterate what Dan said, it's quite clear what terms are for the AT1 is currently outstanding. It's also very clear on the CRD IV, the terms need to be to qualify the AT1. That has not changed. I think that the only read-across you can take from the consultation paper is that there's a general discretion anyway with most regulators, if not all regulators, to think about distributions looking at their other supervisory powers. It is not something specific to AT1s certainly has no impact on the AT1s that's currently issued with regards to their terms. Okay. Thank you, Gildas. And I think that's it. Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. We hope you found this useful. We'll continue trying to do this at the full year next time. And with that, good afternoon.