Firstly, thank you for having me on everybody. Let's step back in terms of flows and net new fee-generating assets, the sort of KPI that we're looking at. Q1 actually was pretty strong. We saw a slowdown in Q2, which we believe we view as an anomaly. As of this quarter, we are seeing positive flows from a net new fee-generating assets perspective. Now, you made the point that we had supportive markets, constructive markets, and what happens as markets move. Now, we all know that we are seeing a recalibration in the market, and we've seen that around rates, and we've seen significant moves around rates. Even if you look at over three months from June to September, you take the 10-year Swiss franc rate. You wouldn't expect to move as much to go from 1.60 to 0.4 to 1.10 again, which is showing some significant dramatic moves. Equally, we're seeing equities down, fixed income down. The 60/40 portfolio in a market environment like this has not been working. Now, that has an impact on investor sentiment and client activity. Having said that, I do feel that looking at our franchise and our platform, our performance versus our competitors over the last three years and five years is number one. If I take the next point is if I look at our overall platform in terms of the curated shelf that we have on managed solutions, every manager, every relevant manager wants to work with us. Our scale that we have globally, being present in the U.S. and being significant in terms of scale also outside of the U.S. as being number one in Asia actually makes us very attractive for managers. Now, you could ask yourself, why is that relevant for net new fee-generating assets? It's relevant because it allows us to create differentiation for clients, better access, deeper access, and allows us to perform over time better. I do feel all of that in one mix makes me feel confident around net new fee-generating assets and our target that's out there, or our ambition better is today of 5% of net new fee-generating assets growth. I guess that's UBS. What about the client? If you're feeling good about the ability of UBS to kind of produce good products, good investments, what are the clients doing? Has their risk appetite gone off a cliff? Is it low? Perhaps, I mean, you've been doing this a long, long time now, and the first meeting I had with you, I can't remember what I was asking you. It was a while back at the previous event. How do clients react in times like this? How are they reacting now and how do they react in times like this? Look, everything we do starts with the client, right? I mean, our business is centered around the client, and I don't say this just as a lip service. Our value chain is very much focused on how we create impact in investment portfolios of our clients. We're in the business of helping our clients do better from a financial perspective. That is fundamentally our raison d'être. Having said that, to your point around how are clients reacting, whenever you see a recalibration like this in markets, you would expect clients to freeze. Equally, you would expect redemptions. Now, if I look at some of our more significant flagship solutions, we haven't seen redemptions. We saw a slowdown of flows in the second quarter as we saw the recalibration of the markets, more significant, and also the uncertainty at a higher level. Clients have been cautious because if you're stepping back and you're looking at what's happening to rates and just looking at the questions you ask and how people think about rates and net interest income, potentially a client is also thinking in that regards in terms of their investment portfolio. One of the goals that we've had is making sure that clients are diversified in this environment. Going into this year, expecting some shift in terms of monetary policy, which has become quite significant and accelerated in that regard, this is a time where clients and investors are thinking about this recalibration, what it means for their portfolio. Now, I personally believe this is an opportunity. This is an opportunity to be close to our clients and actually making sure that they are diversified and that they have an optimal portfolio going through this trough in the markets. Thank you. The trough in the markets, I like that. It embedded optimism. Some people around my desk think we keep going down, but you know, I'm sure you- I'm surprised you picked up on that. I'm sure you're not running the business like that, but let's just look through a risk lens. Obviously investors are mindful that other Swiss banks have had some significant risk issues of late. That hasn't been a feature of UBS so far. Just how you think about running risk in your wealth business over a cycle and then how you responded to what's arrived this year? For us, risk management is part of how we run our business. I mean, the three questions we ask ourselves every day and should be asking ourselves is this better for clients? Is this more differentiated for clients? Number one. Number two, does it in any way or form move the needle for us in terms of scale, profitability? And last but not least, is it best in class in terms of risk management and compliance? Maybe giving you a couple of specific examples of how we manage risk. Let's go back last year and look at us taking down risk when it comes to China and the property market, the high yield market, also going into taking proactive steps in reducing lending values around China tech. Which by the way, was helpful in two regards. One, zero credit losses. We are the number one franchise in Asia from an international wealth management perspective. We are significantly skewed towards Greater China, yet zero losses from a credit portfolio perspective. Having said that, equally, we believe that our stance, which is again linked to our CIO value chain, which I was mentioning before in terms of platform, 'cause what we think about is how do we get clients to content and clients to solutions in a very efficient, effective way. This was helpful also in terms of diversification of clients, 'cause as you take lending values down, specifically in a market like Asia, you actually have clients redirecting investments as well. That's one example. If we think about the Ukraine invasion and the crisis that it brought with it, I think we took a very proactive preemptive approach to managing risk. Again, from a credit perspective in wealth management, zero losses. We have taken a very active approach to risk management in an environment of market recalibration and uncertainty and how clients are reacting to this environment. It is extremely important that managing risk is one of the key priorities. You could argue, well, you have revenue headwinds given the environment, given where markets are trading, while you have tailwinds through net interest income. On the rate side, again, a bit of a more balanced perspective there. You could ask, "Well, are you then thinking of dialing up risk?" Well, we're not actually. We are not offsetting, and we're not even trying to offset revenue headwinds by increasing our risk appetite. That leads me to my next question. Thank you. We haven't actually planned that. On operating leverage. I guess the ideal I've been guilty of this in the past would say, you know, when markets are good, UBS has nice operating leverage. In the past there's been times where the market's settled down, and that's harder to deliver. How do you look at that? Is it important in the very short term? Is it important to keep investing in the franchise? Or is there enough levers that that's something that you aspire to pretty frequently? When you look at a business, a wealth management business specifically, and as all of you know, there's a significant J-curve in building a business like this. We don't manage our business on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, or a monthly basis, or on a quarterly basis for that matter. We do need to take a long-term perspective in terms of the franchise. As we do that, we do try to, of course, defend investments that make sense from a three-year, five-year, horizon perspective. Having said that, I think the gist of the question was very much are you focused on costs, and is efficiency something you're looking at? Absolutely yes, right? There's one element around investments and how we dial investments up and down in a specific market environment, in how we protect strategic investments to make sure that our franchise, which is very strong and specifically globally present, how do we protect that and enhance that? Now, if I look at the value chain and the argument that I was making before, one of the things since I joined UBS, we've been very, very focused on costs and how do we delayer the value chain, both vertically and horizontally, and why are we focused on that? Now, you could argue this is an element of efficiency. Well, actually not. It's a function of effectiveness. We're in the business of serving clients. One of the key objectives is, if we say we start from the client, is having every process start with the client, and every interaction going from client to solution done in the most effective way. That, of course, has opportunities of efficiency. Even if you look at our Asia numbers, right? We saw trading go down in Asia, and you could see how we were very disciplined around costs and how we were able to protect our cost income ratio and profitability margins. I think you can expect us to continue to focus on cost, be cost disciplined and clearly look for those efficiencies to be able to deliver our solutions, our content to our clients in the most seamless way and serve their respective needs. Thank you. Now, it's funny, UBS, there's such a lot of history. Wealth Management and the Investment Bank, and how would I phrase it? From your perspective, running Wealth Management, what do you get for your clients? What does that bring to you? Then, you know, ventures, joint ventures, partnerships like Global Family and Institutional Wealth, are those working well for you as they're set up now? The way you phrase that question, I can already hear the cynicism around. No. As I said, it's. Around your perspective of It's not- investment banking. I'm not cynical about the present. I'm just, I shudder at the past, Richard, or tell you about me from some of the experience before your time. No, thank you, Alastair. Let's step back. How are we looking at? Again, I wanna build on this value chain perspective, thinking of client to solution. Now, we could think about this being an integrated institution like we are as UBS. We could think of this and say, well, actually Wealth Management can have its own shelf, it can have its own solutions and its own technology and its own systems, et cetera, et cetera. Now, having said that, why would you duplicate? One of the objectives has been to actually combine capital markets with our investment banking partners. Why? Because it's more efficient, but it's also more effective. Yesterday, I was spending time with a client who is receiving direct access into the investment bank on the trading side. If I look at the share of wallet gain over the last two years with that respective client, we've been able to increase that share of wallet by 60%. I'm having lunch with a client today who actually did not have a relationship with us, again, a direct access relationship into our markets expertise, which is very strong. Once again, this has become a double-digit million-dollar revenue relationship. So, I think there is elements of you don't want duplication, you wanna think about efficiency and effectiveness, and equally, how do you get the right experts in that value chain to deliver differentiated outcomes for our clients. I think that is very much the gist around how we collaborate from a one UBS perspective. There are multiple other examples around not just markets, but then banking or financing and so on and so on as you go through the product suite. We're very much looking at this horizontally on a value chain perspective and then vertically by every market. You mentioned Global Family and Institutional Wealth. If we look at these Global Family and more institutional type wealth, this has become a business which is relevant to the Investment Bank and as much as it is relevant to Wealth Management. You almost need to be the private Investment Bank for such large, more sophisticated, more institutional clients. This is a business that's material for us. This is a business that has actually grown fast for UBS. Now, if I look at the overall configuration of our revenues, it remains a small business. As of today, it's about 5% of our revenues. This is an opportunity for UBS, given our brand, our scale, and the unprecedented client access we have. Just those two examples are real examples that I mentioned around clients, where we've seen share of wallet increases. I do feel that there is an opportunity in building that out and continue to grow collectively, again, thinking about the value chain from a client's perspective, independent of where you're getting the solution from. As long as you have high quality, good due diligence around your shelf curation, which is absolutely important and key. Thank you. That was a better answer than other UBS has given in the past. Just focusing back just on wealth management, I was a little bit ahead of myself. Tom's retiring in presently, but next month you'll be sole charge. Not, you know, ha ha, he's gone, I'm changing everything. There's it, you know, that is an opportunity for you to take a different perspective to you know, begin looking at things rather differently. How would you characterize what you're looking at in Global Wealth Management from here as sole head? Are they integration opportunities? Is it about growth? Is it about delayering? You know, what's motivating you right now? Congratulations, by the way. Appreciate it, Alastair. Thank you very much. Firstly, Tom and I go back quite a bit and quite a long time in history, and he's not only been a great partner, he's been a great friend as well. Clearly I'm gonna miss Tom and there's, on the one hand, one has to be very respectful of the responsibility that comes with running UBS Wealth Management. Equally, to your point, there is this element of excitement on where you can take a franchise that is the only truly global franchise from a wealth management perspective. Again, as I mentioned before, for some of the managers, investment managers out there, this is a big differentiator, which again, helps us with clients. If I think about our business more regionally, right, what are the priorities? U.S. is about scale and profitability margin. That has been the case, and we wanna continue on that path over the next years, to deliver scale and that respective expectation around profitability margin. Asia is about capturing growth. Now, as you know, and a lot of people here listening know that if you go back on a time series in Asia, you're gonna have that trough in Asia. Then Asia bounces back and goes again to its highs, and then you see a trough. As you go through the time series, you see that time and again. That we believe that there is structural and secular growth in Asia, and we're very strongly positioned to capture that growth with the franchise we have. I mean, the difference between the second-largest wealth manager in Asia, I think we're twice the size. So that clearly is scale and positioning to capture that growth opportunity as Asia rebounds. EMEA is about gaining profitability and very much focused on profitability, as you've also seen around some of the portfolio shifts that we made in Europe, for example. Switzerland's all about market share and continued cost discipline. I think that's how high level I would sort of think about giving regional color. In terms of your specific question around running this globally, Tom and I have been running this business together. Any significant decision, we ran by each other, so we very much ran it as co-heads and partners. From that perspective, I think we've done quite a few things to actually start leveraging the global franchise. CIO is one example. CIO value chain is another example. If you think about how we brought the more managed solutions side of the equation to the U.S. and the subsequent successes we've seen with SMAs in the U.S., which scaled very nicely, how we've brought Wealth Way from the U.S. actually to our more broader non-U.S. franchise. There are a number of examples around revenues and capabilities and value chain where we've looked to gain synergies and best practices. The next level is very much, I think, an area where we can leverage this global franchise more, also from a client's perspective. Enable clients of having relationships with us globally, including in the U.S. A number of our clients have relationships outside of the U.S. and in the U.S. potentially with another institution. That's an opportunity. We have further opportunities in scaling our alternatives business, running that at a on a global scale. If I think back in 2019, on alternatives, we did less than CHF 5 billion a year. Last year, we were at CHF 35 billion. Q1, I think we were at CHF 9, and Q2, we did roughly gross sales of CHF 5 billion. So we've clearly seen quite a lot of acceleration around that. I do feel that we can continue to build up on that momentum that we've created. Are there synergies? Is there further efficiencies to be had? I think it's more of a revenue client and value chain play than it is a specific cost play around running a global business. I do feel that our coverage is local while we need to have global alignment. Hence, we actually call it Local Wealth Management rather than just Global Wealth Management. Thank you. Having mentioned America, we've got to talk a little about that. Wealthfront was one idea. I think Ralph Hamers was accelerating the business in the States. That's come to an end. What is the growth plan in America? There's actually the questions coming through are quite U.S.-focused, so I know the room's interested. It's a funny thing that a lot of the banks this week will be talking about balance sheets a lot, and UBS talks about balance sheet less because it's more of a client business than a balance sheet business, which is great, but there's capital allocation. Is America enough of the capital? Should you be putting more in there, or can you do what you're doing, you know, with the business you've got? I mean, it's a business of significant scale alreaedy. I think you started almost partially answering the question. Well, we are a wealth-centric business, an advisor, client and advisor-led business, specifically in the U.S. You've mentioned Wealthfront. We mutually agreed to terminate that deal. Having said that, we always had an organic plan, and we will continue to deliver on the organic plan that we set out to execute. Now, let's break down what we want to achieve in the U.S. with the objective that I mentioned before, around scale and profitability margin or profit margin. Number one, clearly we're gonna continue to focus on the revenue mix in the U.S. as we've been doing over the last couple of years. We are underpenetrated from a banking perspective, be that on deposits and lending. While we've done a good job in bringing new products out on the liability side, like our savings product, and we've done so on mortgages and SBLs, there is an opportunity around the banking side, as we've mentioned. The second opportunity is on the broader wealth side, and how do you continue to actually hire, retain, but also gain more productivity from your advisor force? Last but not least, is very much the technology and infrastructure investment that is required to actually help scale the franchise. I would say those are the three key priorities. You and I were discussing this earlier on. This is a five-year roadmap in terms of taking this franchise in the U.S. to the next level. Let's also look back. You were mentioning PaineWebber, the respective integration, where this business was and where this business is today. We're talking about a $2 billion profit before taxes business, which is the fourth largest wealth manager in the U.S. We do feel that this is an opportunity that we have, where we can position for scale and continue growth from a profitability margin perspective. Thank you. Thank you. Asia. Not that we don't want to talk about Europe, we always wanna talk about Europe, but you know, of the value drivers, I guess, Asia would be the other big one. China in particular, considerable uncertainty and long, you know. It feels a long time ago already, but common prosperity created a lot of concern that somehow UBS's clients would be on the wrong side of that. How are you adjusting your strategy in Asia for the risks in China, the moderation in growth in China, the politics, versus that scale you've got and you know, the growth potential over the next 5-10 years? Look, we remain very vigilant, as I mentioned before, around risk, and I actually used an example of Asia when it comes to how we've been focusing on risk management. Having said that, we're positive on Asia in terms of it rebounding. The question is when will Asia rebound? As Asia rebounds, we believe we're actually very well positioned around that. Again, in terms of asset size and scale, in terms of geographical reach that we have, and our solution suite, as well as our advisors that we have in Asia. Now, Asia is not just about China. It is also as much about Southeast Asia and the opportunities that Southeast Asia bring with it. As I mentioned before, we are skewed more towards Greater China, which again opens up the opportunities around how can you continue to grow and actually capture market growth, specifically in Southeast Asia, which is a focus that we have. There are significant markets in terms of wealth in terms of activity in Asia, and we will continue to see that. Thank you. Now, there's not microphones, and I've gotta try and stare past these bright lights. Oh, there is a microphone. There you go. We're ahead. Anybody's got it. There's a ton of questions come in here. Do feel free if you want to put your hand up and ask anything that I'm not going to ask. If it's too difficult, I might not ask it. I can't stop you putting your hands up. Okay, I'm gonna start on these questions here. The assertion here is that your U.S. franchise offering is strong but narrow. Mm-hmm. How does it need to evolve for the long term? How do you differentiate yourself versus the other U.S. wealth managers? I think that's a great question. That was anonymous. Sorry. You can put your name across it's a great question. Our offering is narrow. I'm not sure if I would see it the same way. I mean, we have the highest client satisfaction in terms of the U.S., and how clients rate our service and what we do for them on the Wealth Management side. Equally, we have the highest NPSs, NPS score on mortgages in our U.S. mortgage business. So I do feel as we look at the journey that UBS has gone through over the last decade in the U.S., this has actually been quite successful in terms of being able to extend solutions, extend our reach and also thinking about the revenue mix. It is right in terms of if you compare it to other U.S. Peers, you would feel that there is an opportunity for UBS to continue the path of increasing the productivity of advisors. In addition to that, actually improving the revenue mix. The revenue mix can be improved as we've demonstrated on the alternatives side. It can be improved on the banking side and can continue to be improved on the managed solutions side. As we go through that will show accretion around profitability margins and should support the scale. In terms of differentiation, within the U.S., the U.S. Is the largest wealth management market and functioning capital markets by far as of today. Looking at that and looking at our history, where we stand today with the franchise and what we have planned in terms of initiatives, be that on the advisor side, be that on the platform side and on the banking side, should position us really very well, combined with our brand as a global wealth manager, to deliver on some of our ambitions and aspirations that we have in the U.S. Now this isn't defined as a U.S. question, but I'm assuming it is. You can answer it globally if you prefer. How do you find advisors? Why would an advisor choose to work for UBS? It's quite direct. Absolutely. Well, similar to when you're looking to acquire a client or pitch to a new client. Firstly, in a very uncertain environment that we see in the world, safety, stability, reliability and quality of service matters. As markets recalibrate, it is all about quality and reliability. UBS stands for quality and reliability. As a balance sheet for all seasons, and then let's not forget the shelf. Every advisor that we've onboarded, some of the clients I know and I spent significant time with, all confirm that our shelf is more superior than anybody else. Where the opportunity lies is these clients and these advisors will say, "You need to increase or improve the ease of doing business at UBS." That has nothing to do with, by the way, risk or compliance. Yeah. It's just the point around the value chain and the efficiency and effectiveness. That, in my view, is the big opportunity. We've been very successful in onboarding advisors and continue to gain clients. One of our aspirations is doubling the number of our clients and happy, profitable clients, which of course also comes with advisors. Now, having said that, we're not focused on the number of advisors. We're very much focused on productivity and profitability and quality of our advisors. Thank you. Now, there's a number of questions around asset allocation and alternatives. Mm-hmm. UBS is. You know, has clearly been a thought leader and a market leader in the alternatives space and bringing those products to wealthy clients. That's quite a high margin business when it goes well. Is that the right product now? Or given that rates are suddenly 4%, you know, should people just be buying money market funds or whatever, right? I mean, how do you think about the client portfolio when the environment's suddenly very different? As we think about the configuration of a client's portfolio, and you think about how clients are invested, alternatives play a significant role in terms of that asset allocation. We wouldn't suggest that clients are only emphasizing alternatives, right? It should be a part within the portfolio. Alternatives is a very broad definition, right? Looking at some of the macro funds out there, they've actually done quite well in this environment, compared to a 60/40 portfolio. You'd argue if you'd actually have had that in your portfolio this year, it actually provided you a hedge and actually better performance. Again, coming from a diversification and helping clients build better investment portfolios, perspective. If we look at floating credit or real estate that is more linked to floating, and index income and cash flows, they've done quite well as well. I do feel that when we think about the entire investment universe, and I would say we're not just client-obsessed, as an organization, we are investment obsessed and investment value chain obsessed. This is a conversation that we have on a regular ongoing basis around how are we differentiating ourselves for our clients in terms of them investing? How are we helping our clients to diversify? How are our clients performing vis-à-vis other competitors, be that in managed solutions or be that in an advised sort of configuration, at UBS? In that regards, I think it's much more about diversification than a single asset class. Having said that, alternatives play a role within the portfolio, within a sensible diversification configuration. I would argue that if I look at the first six months of this year, a portfolio with alternatives, again, with the right selection of alternatives, which is key, and having the right partners on the manager side to actually deliver good access to relevant solutions, have actually performed better than others. Thank you. Four minutes. Speed it up. Now, I think this sounds like a heartfelt question, so how do you reconcile abandoning Australia in wealth with your Asian aspirations? I have an easy one. No, I don't think it's so hard. That was a decision made before my time. No, more seriously. For Australia, we do have a significant presence when it comes to the investment bank. If you look at the Wealth Management franchise or the business in Australia, it is very much broker-dealer led, and direct drive, and then you have the local, more regional competitors that run the retail slash investment side of the business. For us, at that point in time, there was never the real opportunity to scale that in a meaningful way, also in terms of profitability. It was very much, I think, a footprint portfolio decision like we've been also taking more recently when it comes to Europe. I think that's fair. Europe, Australia is just a bit like Europe sometimes. It's not. You said that. Sometimes. Just coming back, I guess, to the client asset allocation. I think the point is well taken on alternatives. Are the clients interested at this stage, right? You know, it kind of makes sense, but do the clients go for that? Or right now, your typical billionaire is just saying, "Look, I'm just taking the money market fund at 4%," which I'm sure is fine if that's his or her preference because you're managing their interest. You know, is it becoming embedded in behaviors that alternatives and, you know, structures are robust, better than a 60/40 portfolio or people just default back to- I think you have a combination of different sort of dynamics that you would see in terms of client interaction, right? I think there's a strategic longer term perspective of preserving and growing wealth. Then there is the short term knee-jerk reaction to the market environment. In that regard, as you see recalibration, reconfiguration in the markets, you're also gonna see a respective impact of that recalibration and reconfiguration in clients' portfolios. You could argue that shorter term, the money market allocation could would make sense. It very much depends on what are you going out of to get into that. Yeah. Yeah. If it is cash that you've been holding in deposits, which was not that high interest-bearing, and now you're going into a more interest-bearing solution, is a very different outcome than if you have an investment in a floating credit solution or in an indexed real estate solution, which actually should be yielding more than 4%. Because if it's not, then it's not worth it to actually invest with a manager that's not delivering that outcome. Then again, I think we need to differentiate between a very short-term quarterly or monthly view to a mid- to long-term view, because that is the fundamental business we're in. We're here to help our clients live better lives or, differently said, to help preserve and grow their wealth across generations. I can tell you already now, we would not do anything just from a knee-jerk quarterly reaction perspective, to in any way jeopardize what our raison d'être is, which is helping our clients preserve and grow wealth and help them diversify and get the right outcome for their liquidity needs, their longevity needs, and their legacy perspectives. Thank you. Okay. I think that is an appropriate point to finish on and we're out of time as well. Iqbal, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Thank you, Alastair.