Good morning, everybody. For those of you who don't know me, I'm David Richardson, Group Chief Executive of Just Group. I'd like to welcome you to our DB de-risking presentation to all of you in the room today and also those of you listening on the webcast. Our DB business has gone from strength to strength since we entered this market in 2013, and we're very excited about the opportunities ahead. The market itself has scope to grow materially, with interest rates rising likely to accelerate that growth, as you'll hear today. Within that market, there is huge untapped potential for Just. We aim to play a fuller role in the expanding DB market, and today's session explains why we're optimistic that we can do so successfully. Fortunately for you, I'm joined by an outstanding team to take you through the materials today. Opening up will be Pretty Sagoo, who joined us in April this year to lead our DB team. Pretty has a wealth of experience gathered from her prior roles, including deep expertise in large deals developed during her time at L&G. Great statistic we worked out in preparation for this presentation is that Pretty has been responsible for pricing over 10% of all DB transactions ever done in this market. That's quite a remarkable statistic. I hope it's still true, Pretty. She brings that experience here to Just now. Next after Pretty will be Clive Wellsteed, who I've known for a number of years, and he was a senior partner at LCP, which for many years, LCP has been one of the largest employee benefit consultants in the DB de-risking market. LCP, and Clive in particular, are very well-placed to share their views on the direction of the DB market as a whole, which he will be sharing with you. Next will be Rob Mechem. Rob leads our commercial team here at Just who originate all our deals. He's been with Just since 2014, and Rob and his team have between them successfully won around 250 transactions in that time. He's gonna focus on the smaller end of the DB market and explain how we here at Just have built a distinct competitive advantage in that segment. He will also set out how we plan to expand our service to serve more smaller pension schemes in the future. Finally, we're joined by Adam Davis, the Managing Director from K3 Advisory. K3 is a relatively recent entry into the EBC market, and they are challenging the established advisors in that market. They've been particularly successful in helping smaller schemes execute their de-risking strategies, and he will share his insights on that segment of the market. Let me just pause a second and thank all four of them for making the time to prepare for today's session and to present because this is by far the busiest time of year for all of them. Just to illustrate that, Adam will be exiting straight after his presentation, unfortunately. We're very pleased that you could make it here today, Adam. We've got a lot to get through, so strap yourselves in. Just to point out, at 11:00 A.M. we will pause for two minutes silence. There'll be an announcement on the tannoy. I'm afraid that will break some of the flow, but hopefully won't interrupt the messaging too much. There will be plenty of time for Q&A at the end. Before I hand it over to the experts, and before diving into that DB market, let's take a step back to recap why we do what we do here at Just. At the heart of our business is a strong purpose. We help people achieve a better later life. We are the retirement specialist, and we use this strategic focus to deliver exceptional outcomes for our customers. In 2021, we were awarded Company of the Year in the Financial Adviser Service Awards for delivering a decade of consistent, excellent customer service. In February of this year, our DB de-risking team was awarded the Risk Management Provider of the Year in the Pensions Age Awards for the second time in three years. These awards, and many others, are indicative of how our strong purpose and our focus on customers motivate our people to go that extra mile and to stand out from the crowd. They demonstrate the positive and collaborative culture we've built here at Just, which in turn underpins the success of our business. Let's now turn into the DB market and recap on the big picture here on slide five. Now, you've seen most of these graphs before, but they tell a very powerful story that is worth repeating. Going through it in turn, in the top left-hand side, that pie chart shows that we collectively as a sector are only scratching the surface of the DB opportunity, despite DB de-risking starting back in 2005. The numbers are huge, but only 10%, roughly 10% of DB liabilities have been transferred to insurers so far. This story has a long way to run. Pie chart on the top right shows that the DB market is also maturing. In 2010, deferred members accounted for roughly 27% of the total liability, so just over a quarter. Today, that's now over 40%. If you add in the pensioners and payment, that means that over 80% of members of schemes are mature and are ripe for de-risking. Not only is the overall DB pie huge, but the addressable portion is also growing too. Now the graph on the bottom left side shows LCP's previous forecast of up to maybe GBP 650 billion of transactions in the DB market over the next decade. Clive, in his section, will cover LCP's new projection for market growth in light of the remarkable rise in interest rates we've seen recently, which has reduced funding gaps and for many schemes actually eliminated them altogether. Finally, the bottom right chart shows steadily increasing funding levels since 2017, driven by higher employer contributions. More recently, that sharp rise in interest rates has given those funding levels a huge boost with an average of 90% funding versus a full buy-out basis now, which informs LCP's new projections. Furthermore, this is where Adam will layer on the smaller scheme perspective. He estimates that smaller schemes are now even more better funded than average, because those schemes tend to be less well interest rate hedged. Now let's move away from the market and turn to Just for just a couple minutes. Chart in the top left shows how our DB new business premiums have developed from inception. You can see that tiny bar in 2013 when we started out. Since the second half of 2020, with a strengthened capital position and a transformed new business franchise, we've gradually taken off the handbrake on our new business origination and increased volumes. There is still plenty of untapped potential. The bottom left shows how that growth in DB premiums has translated into its relative importance to Just, now accounting for roughly 3/4 of our new business sales. Moving to the right-hand side, you can see our share of the market expressed in a number of different ways. In the bottom right in particular, you can see that we are the third biggest player by number of transactions completed in 2021. In terms of the future, you can think of our growth opportunities in maybe two big buckets. The first is smaller transactions up to around GBP 100 million in size, where we compete with fewer competitors and also can work in many cases exclusively with EBCs and trustees. That's gonna be the focus of Adam and Rob's presentation today. Above GBP 100 million, we compete against the other seven players in the market. There are high barriers to entry to this market, with the last new entrant in 2017, which itself was a very established insurance company. Now, Pretty will be leading Just to the next level in these larger transactions, helping us to fulfill our growth ambitions. The opportunity is vast with huge untapped potential for Just. That's probably the key takeaway from Pretty's sessions today. With that, I'll hand over to Pretty. Thank you. Brilliant. Good morning, all. Thanks for coming and for those online. I'm gonna start by talking a little bit about me and my experience and giving you a feel of my first impressions of having joined eight months ago, which was when I joined the ExCo, the executive committee. I'll share the salient bits actually of my experience. I think probably David alluded to. I started actually at Legal & General running a team which was the dedicated large deal team. That was team focused on transactions for schemes with over GBP 1 billion of liabilities. There actually, I led around GBP 20 billion of transactions, including the back book sale for the Prudential, which was GBP 12 billion, and actually executing the GBP 4.5 billion British Airways transaction. That kind of experience is really what I hope to bring to Just. My last role there was actually leading the pricing team, and that's something that's really close to me, important to me, close to my heart, and that is because I love the technical and the technological side of this business. That's probably because my first job was actually as a pensions insurance quant at Goldman Sachs, which is why I love the quantitative side of our business. Especially important for me though is and it's related to that, the combination of state-of-the-art technology with commercial pricing acumen, I think makes for an unbeatable platform for doing BPA business. I've also been on and off a trustee actually of various pension schemes for the last 12 years, and that gives, I think, invaluable experience just from sitting on the other side of a table. Really helpful to see really what's going on and what's involved in taking care of members. First impressions, I'll share some first impressions of the team as well. I feel very lucky actually to have inherited this team. First and foremost, they are utterly focused on the customer. At the end of the day, what that is what we must be focused on to succeed. At the end of the day, we're paying people's pensions. That's really important. Combine that with the commercial focus and expertise that comes from having written over 250 transactions, what we end up with is a deeply talented team, and I think unusually for this market, quite humble as well. At the end of the day, we are paying pensions to people who have worked 30 years in a factory in the Midlands. We must go into this business with that humility. Over now to the right-hand side just to talk a little bit about our model. I have tweaked this model. We did some restructuring in my first few months. The big change to it was actually on the reinsurance side. I'm gonna talk about that later. Broadly, what are the components of our business? They are first and foremost taking care of customers. That's what our member and operational services team does. We have a commercial team that Rob leads, which is really about deal origination and expanding our proposition in the market. Pricing and reinsurance, absolutely fundamental to actually getting that winning price on the table. Data and transitions, and that describes how we deal with our customers' data, which is something I'll talk about later as well, but also transition, which is onboarding pension schemes into the Just world. If we go on to the next slide, that's a little bit about us. Let's step back for a second and talk about the broader market and how does the broader market operate? What I've done here is split the market into segments by deal side, and I'm looking at the top left for those on the phone. I've cut it into sub-100, which are the smaller schemes. It also happens to be where we've excelled at over the last 12 years. Mid to large, which is 100 to 1 billion and 1 billion plus. What you can see, what we've then done is basically taken a number of transactions done in 2021 and basically ranked all the competitors along on that basis. What do you see from that? Well, you've got clustering at the top. You've got Aviva, L&G, and Just. These are the players who tend to operate across the market. The green blobs, by the way, are the target size of deals for those companies, and you'll no doubt notice that we have a lovely green blob in the GBP 1 billion plus, and I'm gonna talk at quite a lot about how we intend to and how we can succeed in the GBP 1 billion plus later on. I'll spend a bit of time on that. Pretty Sagoo, Phoenix Group tend to focus on the larger end of the market. You've got Canada Life and Scottish Widows that are more selective around the market. That's really what's going on when we're looking at deal sizes in the market. If we step back and have a look at what does the landscape of DB look like. Well, there are about 5,000 schemes still out there. A huge 72% of those have. Under GBP 100 million of assets. That is, that's really a huge portion of the market. It's also where we've operated. What that really leads you to is that there's the balance, which is between GBP 100 million and GBP 1 billion plus, which is largely out there for us to actually work on. Let's take a step across actually to the top right because we already see at Just a huge proportion of deals in the market. This is a 2021 example. Of 156 deals, we priced over half of the market actually, and we won 1/3 of the deals we priced. Our track record in this space and our presence is already really big. In fact, we've written over 230 cases less than GBP 100 million, 30 deals of more than GBP 100 million, and we see a lot of regular flow, exclusives, and repeat business. Actually, repeat business comes back to that customer service. We'll touch on that later too. The important thing from my perspective is all the capabilities needed to really excel in this market already exist at Just, and that for me is a really positive thing and really positions us well going forwards. Onto the next slide 10 please. I'm gonna do a whistle-stop tour of how this market works, how the BPA market works. The defined benefit ecosystem and how it looks is really run by. It really operates with four components, four stakeholders: the insurance company, which is us on the left-hand side here, and sponsors, trustees, and employee benefit consultants. You'll hear the acronym EBCs always when we're talking about the DB market. Sponsors are really the FDs who have to stump up the cash to get a deal, a buyout completed. Here are some of the sponsors that we've worked with in the past. They are really a huge stakeholder in deciding basically to de-risk pension schemes. Trustees are the caretakers, if you like, of members' interests. What do they care about? How are our members gonna be taken care of? Are they going to get the benefits that they were promised, and how do we ensure that happens? One thing we see more and more in this market over the last few years is actually the presence of professional trustees on trustee boards, and actually what we've got here is a range of professional trustees we work with a lot. There are a number of them, an increasingly growing presence on trustee boards. The EBCs are at the core of advising schemes on how, not only how they bring a deal to market, but every aspect of a pension scheme. They are the scheme actuary, they're the corporate advisor, they're the investment advisor. They play a huge role in every aspect of pensions, and that's why we're super pleased to have Clive and Adam with us today to talk about their experience in the market too. If we go on now to actually look at what is the journey that a pension scheme goes through when they are actually thinking of coming to market? Well, it's all about de-risking and some de-risking, a large proportion of de-risking has been done simply through asset allocation changes over the last 15 years, and what the top left shows is just the move away from equities out of pension schemes towards fixed income assets and more matching, more appropriate liability matching type assets. When we look at the broader journey that the scheme takes towards de-risking and how that evolves, that's what we've laid out at the bottom. Really what the bottom diagram shows is that you start with some assets which are typically very often lower than technical provisions of the scheme. How do assets make up to technical provisions of the scheme? Contribution of sponsor contributions and investment performance. If we take that further amount of contributions and investment performance plus liability management exercise can get you or add up to the long-term objective that the regulator, the TPR want every scheme to basically have and to know. The question is, what is that long-term objective? Well, there are two. Either we're going to run-off, the scheme goes into run-off, keeps themselves as they are and gets fully funded, or we move to buyout. I'm gonna step through those very distinct solutions because what are we really talking about? We're saying, right, I'm a pension scheme. What do I wanna do? Do I wanna stay in run-off or actually go to the insurance solution, which is buyout or buy-ins followed by buyout? Well, there are some. I'm I'm not gonna go through the whole table, but there are some distinct differences and I'll just pick out, I think some really big ones. For a start, if I stay in run-off, my assets might not even equal my liabilities. You could have a gap, and the gap is the strength of the covenant, i.e., a promise from the sponsor that I'll make good on the whole. Let's go over to the insurance side now. There is no gap. Indeed, assets must be equal to liabilities, and there needs to be capital on top. In terms of assets backing liabilities, real money, the insurance solution for me has a big advantage. The other one I'm gonna pick, just pull out and share is the stance of the company, the FD. In run-off, there is still risk for the corporate sponsor. There is still risk that life expectancy extends further, that rates move around. There's volatility from the funding of the pension scheme. All of that is off the table once a scheme goes to an insurance solution. Now, if we have a look, quick look on the right-hand side at what are schemes thinking? Where are they? Well, typically for the under GBP 500 million scheme size, actually largely trustees and their corporates have got their eyes on buyout. Two-thirds of scheme under a billion actually are targeting buyout compared to a third the very large end. That's not surprising because very large pension schemes tend to have in-house asset manager, very big corporate behind them. There are structural reasons why there tends to be less focus on buyout at the larger end. What Clive's gonna share hopefully is really how this picture may be changing, especially in light of recent market volatility. Now over to the next page, I'm gonna do a very quick tour of what does the insurance solution look like? Well, let's start with the scheme. On left-hand side, 50% pensioners and deferreds. Typically, actually schemes would do buy-in whereby they buy an insurance contract that exactly covers the benefits of a certain portion of the members of the scheme, typically pensioners. In this case, we take out a quarter, roughly through buy-in, and then what would very often happen is pension schemes would do a series of buy-ins as affordability is there, as deferred members become pensioners and end up at buyout, which is basically the issuance of individual insurance policies to every member of the scheme which cover their exact benefits. Now, what we will see, again, Clive will share, is that with recent market moves, more and more schemes can go straight to buyout, so straight along that black arrow into the buyout space. With that, actually, I'm gonna pass on to Clive to talk to you about the broader market. Good morning, everybody. Just to add a little bit to who I am. I've headed up the buy-in buyout advisory team at LCP since we set it up back in 2006 with just five people. Today we've got over 50 partners and staff in that team helping corporates and trustee boards navigate the journey towards insurance. On the advisory side, we've got about a 30% market share in terms of transactions in the market of all sizes from the very smallest to the very largest. We also transact with all eight of the insurance companies in the market. We're completely independent and therefore focusing on what trustees and corporates are trying to achieve and how the different insurers in the market can best adjust their offerings to meet those objectives is really important to us in advising on the best solution for particular schemes. Now, we've done, over the course of the last month or so, a lot of research into how the insurance market is changing. I think if you look back in a number of years' time at the last 25 years of how the DB pensions world has evolved, there'll be two or three big milestone inflection dates. First one of those is 2004, when the Pensions Act effectively meant all sponsoring employers needed to fully fund their scheme to full buyouts. Second inflection point was the financial crisis and its impact 2008, 2009, 2010, and thereafter. I think the third one will be what's happened this year in 2022. I'm gonna walk you through now what's happened in 2022, and you can only really do that by first of all looking at what happened in the previous decade. It was actually very benign. Pension scheme funding levels were improving year-on-year by a small number of percentage points on a full insurance basis. Then over the course of the last 12 months, having seen a 15% improvement over the previous decade, we've then seen it again so far this year. That is quite extraordinary in terms of the pace of change, and also, I think from the mindsets of the sponsors and trustee boards of pension schemes as well. Because for many years, pension schemes have had journey plans whereby they're targeting, as Pretty says, either self-sufficiency or full insurance. The big change over the course of 2022 is those journeys have accelerated forwards and trustee boards are readjusting what that means for them in the context of a now much higher funding level. As we can see there on slide 18, the average pension scheme in the UK is now within a whisker of being 90% funded against the cost of full insurance with an insurance company. What's been driving that? Now clearly everybody is well aware that 2022 has been a tumultuous year, particularly the more sort of recent sort of weeks and months. I want to just sort of dig one level deeper in terms of what that means for UK pension plans and why we've seen that 15% improvement in average funding levels over the course of 2022. Firstly, gilt yields are much higher, and credit spreads are much higher now than they were if you rewind 12 months. Both those things are good news for pension plans. It varies by scheme, and it varies by size of scheme in terms of how well hedged those pension plans were against moves in interest rates. For almost every pension scheme, those rising interest rates have moved the scheme closer to their full insurance journey because their hedging levels are less than the interest rate sensitivity of an insurance company's price. Wider credit spreads help because that allows the insurance companies that are investing either directly or in sort of quasi credit type assets to pass on some of those higher yields to pension schemes in the pricing that they offer. That moves the insurance pricing closer. Longevity expectations have changed. We've clearly been through COVID over the course of the last sort of two or three years, and I think from the perspective of insurers and reinsurers that price longevity, it's taken a while for them to reassess what COVID has really meant for how long people might live. In 2022, the pricing coming through from insurers and reinsurers is starting to take that into account in terms of lower rates of improvement in life expectancies going forwards to a much greater extent than it has in the past. Also the reinsurance market is intensely competitive and is expanding, sort of rapidly. Then the third one is the competition amongst the eight insurers that are actively writing business is very great, as well. That has meant that the pricing we're seeing coming through, not only assessed on an affordability basis, but also on a value for money basis, looks as good as it ever has done at any point in the past. What does the range of these funding levels look like? We've just been looking at the median line so far, and as you can see there in the middle, on slide 20, just under 90% funded. If we look at, first of all, at the upper quartile line, that actually shows that the top quartile of schemes is almost 100% funded against being able to have enough money to pass their liabilities to an insurer without needing the corporate to write a big check, which had always been the case and often the barrier for full buyouts to take place in the past. That is a huge amount of schemes, both by number and in terms of volume of liabilities, that now have the optionality, if they wish it, to be able to move to full insurance. That number in that top quartile group, if you compare to where we were a year ago, the rate at which that has increased is a key factor behind some of the projections we're gonna look through for market volumes going forwards. Also worth talking about the lower quartile range as well. Clearly, the LDI crisis over the course of the last couple of months has meant a lot of pension schemes are now in a world of sort of reassessing what that has meant for them. That's bedded down and helped by the Bank of England intervention. One of the things that, after consultation with the Bank of England, many pension plans have done going forwards is planning their asset allocations going forwards with an ability to be more resilient to much higher increases in interest rates than was the case prior to September. In order to have that additional resilience, what this essentially means is pension schemes need to hold more in liquid assets that would enable them to be able to post collateral if those very substantial interest rate shocks occurred in the future. What does that mean for the buy-in market? Well, it means, as Pretty mentioned, many schemes in the past have used partial buy-ins as a stepping stone towards reaching full insurance. I think the capacity of pension schemes to do partial buy-ins in a world whereby they now need to hold more assets to be resilient to future larger interest rate shocks is reduced from where we were previously. I think overall we've got this slight tilt of a market whereby volumes were sort of quite evenly split between full buyouts and pensioner buy-ins now moving to a world where more schemes have the ability to do full buyouts, and also a world whereby those schemes that have lower funding levels that might otherwise have done partial buy-ins early in their journey are now deferring those partial buy-ins until they're better funded and therefore don't need to hold those other assets to maintain an LDI strategy or deliver returns to close that gap to buyouts. That's quite an interesting nuance, I think, in terms of how recent market conditions have impacted schemes. The other thing that's quite fascinating, again, if you compare the last nine years to 2022, is the absolute aggregate cost of insuring DB pension plans. The assets are the dark blue bars at the bottom, and then the shortfall to being fully funded on a buyout basis is shown above. If you look at the absolute height of the bars, what you can see is in this new world of much higher interest rates in 2022, the total size of the market has fallen by about GBP 1 trillion in total, which is an extraordinary amount of money. Just for context, the UK's GDP is between GBP 2 trillion and GBP 2.5 trillion. The absolute fall in the size of DB pension schemes is actually about half of the U.K.'s annual GDP. Of course, that isn't gonna come through necessarily as an improvement in funding positions because, of course, all these schemes are holding assets to at least partially match the movement in liabilities, but it is a huge step change. Translating that onto insurance companies, now David, in his introduction, showed our projections from last year, which are shown as these sort of light, sort of gray bars. What this is doing is projecting forward individual pension schemes', funding levels on a buyout basis, looking at their individual asset strategies and contribution strategies and working out when they would have the ability to fully insure if they wish to. The big red circle on the right-hand side is where that peak demand was coming through on the basis of pension scheme funding levels a year ago. Fast forward to today, so these numbers are based on the position as at the end of September. That aggregate demand from pension plans has come forward from the end of the decade to the next two or three years. That, I think, is the backdrop of how the buyout market will evolve over the next three years, and I think creates both opportunities and challenges for all of the stakeholders that were on Pretty's slide previously in terms of how they manage those volumes. The big unknown, which is shown by the ranges of the bars, is how many schemes who have reached the ability to fully insure if they want to do so, how many of them actually choose to complete an insurance transaction rather than running off over the longer term. My sense in my conversations with trustee boards and with CFOs and treasurers on the sponsor side is that is changing, particularly at the larger end of the market. What we would need to see if the top end of those ranges come through is really a change in the mindset of the very largest pension plans in the UK to actually move away from deciding to run off over sort of the next 10 or 20 years to moving to a world whereby actually they look to get the liabilities over to an insurance company and then wind up the pension plan. We've done demand. Now supply. This slide here shows the results of a survey of all of the insurance companies in the market as to what their BAU appetite might be in 2023. If you add that up over the eight insurers in the market, you come to about GBP 45 billion, which is shown on in the pink bar on the right-hand side. On the left-hand side, we've got the upper and lower projected demand from 2023 that we showed on the previous slide. What you can see from that is there are some scenarios whereby that sort of insurer appetite is less than and some scenarios where it's more than the potential volumes that come through. I think we'll go on in the next couple of slides to sort of explore that in a little bit more detail. Let's focus potentially on being at the upper end of that range. What are the things at insurance companies that potentially might preclude the ability to realize the potential in the market? Again, this reflects discussions with all of the insurers in the market. The thing that comes through time and again across all the insurers in the market is the resource constraints to actually get a transaction done. That will mean those insurers that succeed in the world over the next few years are those that have efficient mechanisms to be able to complete transactions quickly in the future, and those potentially that focus on larger transactions that give sort of more bang for buck relative to the time taken to complete those transactions. If you overlay that with where we were two slides ago, with the fact that overall liabilities are now much lower, insurers will have to write more transactions, all else equal, to deliver the same volumes that have been delivered in the past. That resource piece is absolutely key. You'll also note interestingly that capital is at the bottom of that list, so the least important thing constraining insurer appetites. Of course, in a rising interest rate world, solvency level is much, much higher. I think capital, in my view, also isn't going to be a barrier to insurance companies delivering the growth that they are targeting. We have that appetite gap. I think the market will evolve to be able to transact at those higher levels if they come through. The other challenge will be whether insurance companies can carry on offering pricing at the same value for money if we're at GBP 60 billion a year rather than GBP 45 billion or GBP 30 billion because pricing does depend so much on the asset sourcing pipeline that insurance companies have in terms of being able to put forward the best possible, sort of pricing. That will be a key thing to see whether those higher volumes potentially reduce demand at all, and result in sort of higher overall pricing. In terms of what all of this means for pension plans, I think first of all, insurers are likely to be more selective when pension plans approach them. Rewind a year or two, you could quite often get six of the eight insurance companies quoting for particular cases. I think insurers will be more selective given the demand that's coming. I think there will be attractive pricing available, but as that demand increases, if pricing goes up, that may be a headwind to that demand emerging quite so quickly. When you approach markets and how you approach markets is going to be really, really important. You want to be able, if you're a pension scheme trustee board and sponsor, to get really strong engagement from the insurers. If you don't, that is quite often sort of a headwind from delivering the pricing levels that we're seeing in the market at the moment. Finally, preparation clearly is key. In terms of what insurance companies themselves prioritize, again, this reflects input from all eight insurers in the market. There's actually less commonality between the eight insurers than you might otherwise expect, but this tries to normalize all of that. The thing I would say is that more today than perhaps at any point in the time, you might get insurers focusing on different parts of the market. If you have schemes that are GBP 10 billion, 20 billion in size contemplating doing an insurance transaction, that has the potential to occupy some of the eight insurers in the market quite significantly. That leaves other market segments potentially with less insurers participating. I think therefore that triaging process will start to become more distinct in terms of what different insurance companies are targeting. The other thing there I think is, right at the top and interesting is this level of preparation point. Just because a pension scheme is 100% funded on a buyout basis today, if they've got their five, six, seven, eight, nine years ahead of when they're expecting to, they may not be in a position with the quality of their data or their other preparation to be an attractive counterparty to an insurer. Those schemes that will get the best engagement from insurers will be those that have done their preparatory work and are a smooth counterparty to transact with. Two more slides just to finish off. I think it's interesting to look at investment strategy because of I alluded to this earlier in my comments on the sort of LDI crisis and its aftermath. The average pension scheme is now 15% better funded. What's it doing? Well, for a lot of them, they're taking stock, and they are now saying, "If we are now 90% funded and previously we were 75, a very sensible thing to do is reduce the level of investment risk that you're taking, lock in those gains, and reduce the ability of that 90% funding level to fall away again, take action to better match insurance company pricing linked to reducing that downside risk and also managing liquidity." I think one of the other things that we'll notice over the course of the next few years is quite a lot of pension plans, again, who might have had a 10-year journey to buyout or more, are invested in at least a proportion of their allocation in quite illiquid assets. Those illiquids are often a challenge from the perspective of executing an insurance transaction. Many schemes, particularly at the larger end, will be looking at whether insurance companies can offer greater willingness and ability to take a wider range of asset classes than they did previously. Alternatively, those pension schemes will need to look at other exit routes for those illiquid assets before they can complete insurance. Finally, just to finish off on slide sort of 29, I wanted to talk a little bit about a transaction that I led earlier in the year, which was for Barloworld. They've got a circa GBP 500 million pension scheme in the UK, and we completed the transaction after a very competitive process with sort of Just in the summer. I just wanted to give a couple of reflections from myself and also the clients, both from the company and trustee side, in terms of how they viewed transacting with Just. The first thing is the summer, while not as volatile as during the LDI crisis, was still a pretty volatile time with movements in interest rates, and that transaction was done successfully against those volatile markets. Just in terms of being a counterparty and offering a safe harbor for the pension plan in terms of how you structured a price lock to help them move from a position where their funding level was volatile to being locked in against an insurance company price, showed great levels of flexibility. I think at the larger end of the market, that is really important in terms of what pension plans are seeking in terms of having a very low execution risk. The scheme was also aware that this would be Just's largest buy-in sort of carried out to date, and they approached that in an open-minded way, but it was also important for Just to be able to demonstrate that their proposition was attractive against this, sort of larger market as well. The conclusion of that process, both in terms of, financial strength, administration capability, and member experience, was that the trustee and sponsor were very impressed and then selected Just for exclusivity. We ultimately completed that transaction, in the summer. Just some personal reflections there to finish off, and, that's the end of my, presentation. Thank you, Clive. As David mentioned, I'm Rob Mechem. I lead the commercial part of the DB business in Just, and I joined in 2014 from Aviva. Moving on to slide 31, if I may. I want to start briefly talking about our journey so far. From our first transaction in 2013, we have now completed over GBP 11 billion of liabilities with pension schemes transferring them to us. This is over 250 transactions and equates to one in six of all the transactions that have completed since 2013. This has been done with a strong customer focus in mind, whether that's through the EBC, the trustees, and ultimately the member. We've built our propositions to meet those clients' needs. In 2015, we completed our first repeat transaction. We innovated and completed our first transaction using the bulk quotation service in 2019, and we recognized the changing dynamics of schemes being more able to afford full scheme buyouts, the black arrow that Pretty showed, and developed both our pricing and proposition capabilities for deferreds with our first transaction on that basis in 2021. Indeed, 40% of our business last year was based in the deferred segment. As we have evolved and grown, we completed our first transaction over GBP 250 million in 2018, and as you know, we completed our first DB partnering transaction in 2019. We have had a consistent presence in the market over the last 10 years, consistently transacting over GBP 1 billion pounds of liabilities and circa 20-25 transactions every single year. On slide 32, I want to explain how we've done this. We've gone about building very strong relationships with EBCs, trustees, lawyers, and sponsors of pension schemes. We have listened to the market, reacted, and have built credibility due to the unwavering commitment to quote and develop propositions to meet those clients' needs at the right time. Our focus has been able to respond quickly, flexibly, pragmatically to solve solutions, often in live deal situations, leading to collaborative processes that move in an efficient way. Indeed, our approach runs through all of our business, whether that's the origination, the pricing, the transition of the data, or customer service. Customer is critical. Of course, all of this is underpinned by excellent pricing experience, reinsurance partners that we've worked with for years, and a strong asset origination capability that Paul Fulcher did a seminar on earlier this year. On slide 33, I wanted to focus a little bit on the smaller schemes part of the market. Adam will also talk about this later. As Pretty mentioned, about 72% of the pension schemes in the market have scheme assets less than GBP 100 million. That's 3,750 schemes in that sector. We believe that size of the market is about GBP 150 billion-GBP 200 billion. The de-risking market, however, has only done about 100 transactions in this space every single year, and that's because there is a human capacity issue. That human capacity issue is in all of the segments, whether that's administrators preparing the data for a transaction, lawyers looking at the benefit specification and ultimately negotiating the contract with insurers, or indeed advisors working through the process. That's before you get to the capability of insurers like ourselves being able to quote on large numbers of transactions. If the market grows as expected and in line with Clive's expectations, it will become very busy. There is a real risk that these small schemes will get crowded out of the market. Their funding position has increased like everybody else's funding positions. They are in a place where they can get ready for transactions. Onto slide 34, I wanted to talk about two areas where we've actively tried to help sort this issue. We recognized probably about three or four years ago from reports from all of the EBCs, including LCPs, that there was going to be a human capacity issue, particularly at the smaller end. We worked with EBCs and trustees to build something that solves that solution. Our bulk quotation service is an innovation that was important to us to ensure that these small schemes were not crowded out of the market. It was designed with them in mind to get accurate access to live, accurate pricing, which they could then understand their de-risking journey better. 3,750 schemes ready to transact over the next 10-15 years is massive. This service provides them access to those proprietary pricing, and I'll come onto that in a little bit more in the next slide. The process includes collecting member information and scheme data. There's information specific to that scheme. We then upload it to our system and provide pricing within weeks of them providing that information. Once on the system, importantly, we can monitor that over as long a period of time as the trustees require. It's been very successful. We've completed 40 transactions totaling GBP 1.2 billion over the time we've been doing this. Importantly, it's growing. We are actively quoting on 115 quotes per month and adding more than 10 every single month. It is a growing part of the market. Some schemes come onto the tool and are pleasantly surprised by the pricing. They're in bulk buyout affordability from immediate position and move to transactions very quickly, often exclusively with us. Others track the pricing over a longer period of time with a strong knowledge they know what an insurer pricing is at that time. On the right-hand side, I wanted to cover how we help our existing clients. Before 2020, as Pretty alluded to on the charts went up and down, most transactions were pensioner-only. That is, they only transacted part of their overall scheme. We recognized that doing one transaction is only part of the journey for schemes. We worked with the trustees to understand their de-risking journey. We invest in building strong relationships, providing excellent service, and then demonstrating flexibility when an opportunity occurs to de-risk more members. This again often leads to a strong preference to go exclusive with us. Clearly, with the advisors being in the background to help and assist on that process. We often use the bulk quotation service to assist on that journey as well. We are very proud that we've completed 42 repeat transactions with 33 different clients. To bring it to a little bit more to life, of the GBP 1.6 billion of repeat transactions, they came from initial transactions of GBP 1.7 billion. I say some of those, 70% of those have been on an exclusive basis. I wanted to touch on the bulk quotation service in a little bit more detail and explain why it's so popular. As mentioned, it gives schemes access to real-life pricing from an insurer, often when it is very hard to access the market. The pricing is accurate, and what I mean by that is we use longevity in assumptions and in investment assumptions that are live. We work with the reinsurance partners, so we understand the reinsurance terms we're gonna get on those transactions as well. But importantly, the price focus is on the scheme, so the trustee understands exactly where their pricing is from a live insurer at a point in time and then can take a number of actions off the back of that. They can transact. As I mentioned, some schemes find they're sitting in surplus and can transact immediately, securing all of their liabilities for their members in one go. They can monitor against their assets. In a situation where the pricing is close but not quite there, they can track the pricing and their assets, and we will help them with that over time, and when they are ready, can transact and execute it quickly and efficiently. They can go and talk to their sponsor with more certainty on their pricing. We could accelerate contributions, they could change their investment strategy, and rarely, but still happens, they talk about doing pensioner-only transactions to de-risk some of the liabilities. The fourth important thing for them is they can go and prepare. Going, collecting, and cleaning some of the data and understanding their investment strategy is a costly event. By knowing the pricing from a bulk quotation service, they can actively go and prepare their scheme properly to be transaction-ready. What does that mean for us? Well, firstly, it builds a nice strong pipeline of schemes that we can execute efficiently. In a world where human capacity is constrained, we want to be able to transact fast and quickly with certainty. It allows conversations for us to have with the trustees about the quality of their data, to point them in the right direction of things that they need to look at and resolve either now or as part of the 12-month, 18-month data cleanse. Equally, it gives certainty for us. We understand whether a transaction can be affordable or not in an efficient way. If it can, it will move to transaction quickly, either with us on an exclusive basis or generally in the market. If it's not affordable. We haven't wasted a lot of human capacity because we have an efficient process to understand that. It builds a pipeline at a low cost that we can transact efficiently. Onto slide 36, I want to put some numbers onto that. As I mentioned, we're actively quoting and monitoring 115 quotes per month, adding 10-15 every single month on top of that. That's over GBP 2 billion of liabilities that we are actively monitoring pension schemes. Once it's affordable and we work out how to do it, we can execute these processes really quickly. In a human capacity-constrained world, we are transacting these cases as quickly as 2 to 3, four weeks once a price has been resolved. We've worked successfully with most of the EBCs in the community here, and actively, interestingly, we are seeing professional trustees actively asking us how they can be more involved in this process. To bring this to life, we thought we'd put it into a little bit of a case study at the bottom. This actually is a client that is an existing client and has used the bulk quotation service. In August 2021, the first transaction occurred through a competitive process, completed in a very fast, effective way. Following that, we immediately started talking to both the EBC and the trustee about monitoring the remaining members of the liability, predominantly deferreds. They went on to our bulk annuity quotation system within a couple of months of the first transaction. We wanted to then track that for a number of periods of time. Not surprisingly, right at the start, it was close, but not close enough. Over time, their assets and our pricing is moving in different directions, and it became clear in May or June of this year, by working with the EBC and trustees, we were able to transact the remaining members of that scheme exclusively with us and with contracts signed within 10 days. Clearly, a win-win and efficient process to solve the solutions or problems for smaller schemes. I also want to go into a little bit of understanding on our repeat business as well, just a bit of flavor on that. We really do pride ourselves on being able to assist them on the whole de-risking journey. We do not see this as a one transaction only. We want to work with them as our part. With them being the partner of choice to complete the journey as long as it takes. It is something that I and the whole team are immensely proud of when we do repeat transactions 'cause it is a testament of the excellent customer service that we provide end to end. As I said, we've completed 42 transactions, eight of which were in the first half of this year. Wanted to bring this to life with another case study. The Otto UK Pension Scheme has approximately GBP 500 million of assets and liabilities for both the Freemans and the Grattan members sections. A transaction in 2018 was originally brokered, a GBP 50 million pension annuity transaction, which we were obviously delighted to win. We built a relationship with the trustees and the sponsor through attending meetings, updating on their policy, updating on Just as a company, and this led to us understanding the possible de-risking options and pricing to possible other pension transactions. In 2020, we completed a further GBP 80 million pension annuity transaction, and earlier this year, we completed another GBP 55 million on a pension transaction again earlier this year. Through our continued assistance, our flexibility, and excellent customer service, we really hope that we can help them de-risk the rest of their scheme over time and when it becomes available. Onto slide 38, I want to say this is all underpinned through our main purpose. By securing a bulk annuity, we are securing members' incomes and thereby giving them a better later life. Excellent customer service is critical to our success, and we provide the support and guidance to the members of the schemes we have insured. We have a dedicated team to support and listen to the policyholders as they move through their lifetime. We have online member portals providing key information and useful links. They have access to decision services at the point of retirement to help them make the right decisions for them. All of our communications are clear, concise, and most are Crystal Mark to ensure they are free of jargon and easy to understand. I want to reiterate, doing the right things for our policyholders is what makes us unique. Hand over to Adam. That was impeccably timed by Rob for the two minutes silence so that I didn't get broken up. Oh, good morning, everybody. My name is Adam Davis, I'm the Managing Director of K3 Advisory. I'll start on slide 40. As an introduction to why K3 exists. K3 was founded because we passionately believe that the right home for small DB pension schemes is insurance. It would be a bizarre world where individual people on the street can secure their retirement incomes through an annuity market, large DB pension schemes can secure through bulk annuities, and there'd be a gap in the middle. Especially when you're given what Rob said about the sheer number, you know, 3,000, 3,700-ish of schemes fall into the category of what we would call small. Since being founded in 2018, we've spent our entire time trying to make sure we can solve the problem from the insurance side as well as the pension scheme side of how you marry up small pension schemes so they're effective and easy to transact with insurance companies. On the pension scheme side, I'll give an example actually from yesterday. On this slide, on slide 40, it talks about K3. We actually only do this type of work. We don't do actuarial services and administration, investments. We actually partner with a number of firms where we bring our expertise and one of the fiduciary managers we work with contacted me yesterday. He'd sat in a trustee meeting, and the scheme actuary had come along, and it was a small scheme, and it was a slightly complicated scheme. We're not going into too much of the complexity, but it was sectionalized. There were six sections, each scheme its own scheme. The scheme actuary came to the meeting and said, "Good news, four of your sections are more than fully funded to buyout." You can just imagine I wasn't in the room, so I'm dramatizing this a little bit. You can just imagine, the finance director would have been in the room and he, you know, a slight smile on the face thinking, "Brilliant, brilliant. We can get rid of this scheme. No more money needed from the sponsor." The chair of trustees would have been over the moon to think we can now secure these members' benefits and make them safe. Unfortunately, the scheme actuary in that case then tried to spoil the party because they said, "But the bad news is, insurers won't quote for these sections." They were all sub GBP 10 million of assets. They said, "As a matter of fact, they just you won't be able to get any insurer to quote. And by the way, it will take you two years at least to sort your data out to the level of quality that an insurance company would need." If I'd have been in the meeting, I think I'd have picked myself back up off the floor from those statements. Firstly, small schemes can't take two years to sort their data out. There's just not that many members to sort data out from unless there's some pretty significant problem, which in most schemes there're not. The other bit, and this is the final part of the introduction to K3, is I could have categorically said that having sub-GBP 10 million of assets does not stop you accessing the insurance market. Over September and October alone to date, K3 did five transactions sub-GBP 10 million with three different insurers in the market. The market is very open to small schemes if they're approached in the right way. We've done 40 transactions since being founded. The 40th was on Monday. A range of sizes up to the biggest being GBP 250 million. The smallest at the moment, roughly GBP 1 million. We'll go lower than that as well. I think one of the reasons we work well at getting traction for small schemes is because we have a 100% success rate. Every scheme we've taken to market has transacted. Every scheme has been well-prepared and ready for the insurance market, meaning that it's an easy marriage to make. In terms of the demand, I'll move on to slide 41. Typically a week for me would see maybe typically one new inquiry if I'm having a good week from a small or medium-sized scheme if I look back historically. At the moment, not a day goes by without a small pension scheme, whether it be the sponsor or the trustee knocking at K3's door to ask about whether we can help them with the insurance market. The reason for it is shown on this graph here. I mean, Clive showed LCP's opinion about just how quickly scheme funding has improved. Of course, for a lot of large schemes, that improvement has come alongside them having quite well-matched assets and therefore has been relatively dramatic. For smaller schemes, especially the ones we've seen, actually their use of things like LDI is much, much lower. Therefore, I mean, we've seen a number of schemes sub GBP 10 million, where the risk management isn't very brilliant at all. I mean, they could be sat entirely in cash. I'm not promoting that as a good investment strategy, but of course what you would see over the course of this year is that they dramatically improved their funding level quickly. We have a small scheme index where we track the pricing because we're trading small schemes all the time and where it's moved. As you can see there on that graph, a dramatic fall since the start of this year, 47%. That's 47% reduction in annuity pricing. Of course, their scheme assets will have gone down, but actually for small schemes, by not as much as you think on average and therefore there is, in my opinion, hundreds of small schemes that in the last couple of months have gone past 100% funded. My job now is to make sure they actually know because pension schemes and small schemes tend to work around triennial valuation cycles, which are totally inappropriate in the very volatile market conditions we're now in. If I move on to slide 42 and just talk about what are the challenges in the small scheme market? What do I live with day to day? Well, attracting insurers is clearly an issue. You know, you're not gonna get eight insurers interested in a very small pension scheme. And so you need to think and make sure that those schemes are relatively well prepared, and are not gonna be a hassle for insurers once they transact them. Another challenge is actually understanding the premium and hence cost. I mean, small pension schemes, their liability will be probably captured in a handful of members. They might have 50 members in the scheme, but not all members are created equally, of course. Actually, most of the liability was out in very, very few people. Therefore, even when you see multiple insurance quotes, insurers can't agree on quite what those members' life expectancies are, so neither can I guess at what they're likely to cost. Actually, you see quite a wide variety of opinions as to what actually might be the cost of insurance for small schemes. Then lastly, a lot of small schemes just don't have access to the same kind of advice as their larger counterparties. Their investments might be looked after by, you know, IFA-type firms, et cetera, which don't have as much experience or bandwidth in the DB market. What does that all lead to? It means that small schemes will find it difficult to potentially move quickly and seize opportunities, the opportunity that they're now sat with. On slide 43, I wanted to talk about our experience with the Just Bulk tool, 'cause this we find very helpful in the market for small schemes. Firstly, by putting a scheme on there, we can of course get from the horse's mouth at least one insurer's view of where the pricing is. That doesn't mean that's going to be the best price in the market, of course, but it gives you a benchmark, and it's no longer an actuary's guess, it's a live number that you can benchmark against. It's a fantastic tool in the sense that, you know, we put schemes on there that we're not sure whether we're quite there or not, so we're not, you know, Just are aware that we're not necessarily at a point where we could transact. Of course, Just aren't insisting that we actually work exclusively with them in any case that they're providing a service. What it does is it gives that price, and therefore what we can give to clients is an option. In the volatile market conditions we've seen of this year, particularly at the small end of the market, that is so incredibly valuable because I think Rob mentioned it that some schemes are surprised at the number that comes back on that. We've certainly seen that with a good number of small pension schemes where we've put this on the tool expecting that the scheme might be close to or near funded to find that the scheme's already in surplus to buyout by the time they knocked at our door. In that situation, well, that's an interesting option now because if you're just sat there as the sponsor, sponsors typically of small pension schemes, the SME, they're not interested in getting a bigger surplus. They just want rid of the scheme. The trustee, of course, just wants to make sure that members' benefits are secure. With this quote in hand, there's a very, very powerful option for them, which is to say, "Okay, Adam, can you tell me, is this the best price I can get?" No, I can't. If you wanna know the best insurer price, we take you to market, but that's gonna take two months, best will in the world, to get the quotes. Where will your assets be even if de-risked in two months' time? You have an option. Do you want to move quickly, take this price, it's a bird in the hand, or do you progress to the market and do it? In most cases, not all, but in most cases, most clients want to take the certainty of the price they've got in front of them, which is a value they like, and move quickly. The last point on the tool as well is it is very cost-effective then to keep clients up to date, if it's not immediately transactable because it automatically produces pricing and live pricing then on a monthly basis. It might be a slight inconvenient truth for the actuarial community that this provides a lower cost solution than your scheme actuary updating a guess. To give an example of this, we recently, I think it was a week and a half ago, completed a project with Just called Project Magnolia. Very small scheme, GBP 7 million of assets. Actually seven individual pensioners. They were all high net worth individuals. K3 was engaged at the beginning of August. The data, given there was only seven people, was fairly clean. In fact, the trustee had email correspondence with all members and could gather all the information that was needed. We uploaded it onto the bulk tool to see because the nature of the scheme with each member's liability being roughly GBP 1 million, that's quite hard to know quite how an insurer might view that. We put it on the Bulk quotation tool, and we got pricing by the nineteenth of August, and that's in comparison to going to the market at which you would be waiting eight, nine, 10 weeks, assuming resource was available to do it. Pricing came back lower than the client was expecting. The client had actually gone through corporate activity. There was a new, slightly bigger sponsor behind, and they looked at the price and said, "We just want this off the table. We're not interested in whether a better price can be found in eight weeks' time. How quickly can we transact this?" We did collect a little bit of extra information from the members. Didn't take very long. It was an email from the trustee to them. Just were able to turn their indicative platform to a binding quotation, and we completed. On the 12th of October. That was a 10-week process beginning to end. We'd have probably still been waiting for quotes if we'd have gone the alternative route. Actually, if we had have not needed that little bit of a pause in the middle for a bit of data, we would have actually completed beginning to end in six weeks, which I think for small schemes, possibly even for large schemes, the ability to move that quickly in these kind of conditions, I think is a very valuable option to have. With that, I'll hand back to Pretty. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much, Adam, and I think Adam's gonna leave us now. Thanks a lot. Actually, they've set me up, Rob and Adam have, really nicely to tell you a very, very quick story. Where's Alistair and Paul? Do I presumably need to go up a little bit quicker? No. No, I'm all right. Okay. I had three calls or meetings when I arrived from EBC, a mixture of EBCs and actual existing clients who said, "Pretty, please don't change what Just does for us at the smaller end of the market. Please keep being there to give us quotations for the smaller end." That was a big signal to me, and I think what Rob and Adam have demonstrated nicely is why those requests were made to me. We're going on to slide 46. What you would have naturally expected me to do is come in and do an assessment of Just. A truthful assessment of really, with the experience I have of doing large schemes, how are we, how would I honestly rank our capabilities to do large schemes? and large, I mean under GBP 2 billion, but also GBP 1 billion plus. The approach I took was to say, right, what are the hygiene factors? What is required to really do a big scheme? Then what are the differentiators which in the heat of a moment of execution of a large deal, really, in my experience, make the difference between winning and losing? I've ranked ourselves. I've done some color-coding going on here, as well. The green parts actually are the two biggest components of pricing deals. What do you need to be able to successfully price? You need great asset origination, and we have an innovative and scalable asset origination platform, which already does an amazing job of bringing us the assets we need to do deals. Given us five stars for that. Longevity and managing the longevity risk in transactions, that is an essential part. Clive said there's a huge market out there, competitive market, providing reinsurance pricing for longevity risk. I've only given us three for that. I'm gonna talk more about that later, especially around how we're gonna get that to five very quickly. The other three orange bars there are really the platform components that I think any insurance company involved in this market needs to excel at to get deals done. Breadth of benefits experience. How many transactions has a company done? How big is their experience of the different flavors of inflation escalation or pension benefits, which in the U.K. are very, very complicated. We have done a lot of transactions. We've pretty much seen it all, which is why I have given us five stars on that. Execution flexibility is then more nuanced around, okay, what are the extra benefits or the extra tweaks during a deal that we might need to provide? By that, I mean, a scheme might have residual risks. They might want residual risk cover. Deferred members bring a lot of optionality into a deal. What are the things we can offer to deferred members that a trustee might like? You might have PPF plus cases where a scheme is in an assessment period on its way with an employer that's struggling. In that space, I've given us four because our proposition is almost fully there, where there's still a few things that we're working on. We'll be there very quickly, but again, the breadth of benefits experience we've got is helping us, as well as the speed with which we actually can develop our proposition. That brings me to the next one, which is reaction time to complexity. For me, and I think Clive alluded to this too, that being able to react in the heat of a transaction to pricing requests, additional pricing requests, to tweaks in the contract that the trustee maybe doesn't like and needs a quick response to, we at Just are structurally advantaged. We have a huge structural advantage in being able to respond quickly to queries, to changes, to requests during the heat of a transaction, and that is really, I think, gonna put us in great stead as we grow the size of the deals we do. Scalable technology, super important to me. I'm gonna spend a few minutes on that later. We're only at a three. Very close to my heart to get us to five very quickly and, I'll talk about that in a minute. On to slide 47. I talked about why I think we're gonna win big. Now, how are we gonna do that? How do these processes work? You have a request to close quote led by an EBC. There are a round of quotations. There's a decision on the provider, and then schemes get transitioned onto the insurance company. How do we respond to that? Well, first and foremost, the triage process. Choosing the transaction. Really key. Lots of decision points go into there. We have our Monday morning triage process. We've had it for an awful long time. We are now. That's fully suited to what we need to do. I'm gonna pull out just some of the things then that make winning more certain in the larger deal space. Really important, once you've got your price that is competitive and a winning price, then the big differentiator comes down, I think, to care of customers. Customer care, I mean, for us, testament to customer care is the amount of repeat business we do. I have to say, I also sat in one of my first pitch meetings with the team at Just who take care of customers. It was the first time I'd seen them in action, and I came out of that meeting thinking, "Wow, I hope they're gonna take care of my mom and dad's pension somehow." I mean, they are a fantastic team. They are driven by care for members, which is a huge differentiator in winning small as we have, but also in winning big. Core underlying our business and these slides. I'm on slide 48. These slides are actually. You've seen them before largely for the group basically. Core to what we do is maintaining pricing discipline, and we fully intend to continue that as we grow into the larger deal space. Risk selection and discipline around cost as well is really important. Our new business targets haven't changed as communicated before, and we stick to them as we go into entering the larger deal space too. I said I'd touch on reinsurance. It's worth spending a couple of minutes on because we do have existing long-standing relationships which have served us extremely well, and will continue going forward. However, on the left-hand side, there is a huge market out there for highly rated, very well-established reinsurance parties that can help us further, especially as we do larger and more bespoke transactions. We will fully take advantage of that. I said I'd slightly tweaked the team since I arrived. The big change I made actually was to bring everybody who does reinsurance for the DB business into the DB team, and that team is very focused on making this happen. The other really important lever that Just has and uses and used very recently in July is to use the funded reinsurance space. In July, in the transaction we did with Barloworld that Clive touched on as well, we actually chose opportunistically to do some funded reinsurance as part of that transaction. Funded reinsurance for us is a great opportunistic option for basically managing our asset and liability risks, longevity risks rather in a transaction. We have a strong and growing appetite to do that, but we also have a number of parties in the market coming to us to work with us. When I tell you that transaction, the funded reinsurance part of that transaction we did from scratch, from zero to execution in 10 weeks, it also gives you an idea first of flexibility and execution and the streamlining that we have internally in decision-making. That sent a signal to the market as well, which is why we do have a lot of incoming that Just is a great partner to potentially work with. On to the asset origination. Briefly, this is actually a slide from the investor presentation that my colleagues Paul Fulcher and David Ramroop did earlier this year. It's on our group website. Do take a look at it. Broadly, what I'll just take away from it is our target new business mix to back the liabilities we originate, fixed income, a decreasing proportion of lifetime mortgages. The important thing for me is the growth that you can see as well that's been achieved in the liquid asset part of our portfolio, which is gonna be really important for what we're trying to do. Finally, technology is a key enabler for us. I gave us three stars for it. Let me tell you why, we're gonna get to five very quickly. Data runs right through the DB process. Absolutely critical at every stage. Triage. When we choose deals, there is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be using AI to determine, help us to determine our probability of winning a deal. That's actually pretty easy stuff. Pricing. The speed with which we price, the speed with which we turn around requests from EBCs. This is all driven by good technology, which I think is largely been underutilized in the BPA space. Onboarding of customers, the accuracy and the speed with which that's done, really important for our customers. As is then the care we give to them, including digital tools that we make available for customers. I think a really important part of our process. We've got a program that we're running called DB Modernisation, whereby we will greatly enhance our technological capabilities. Right. I'm gonna end with one more slide, just to summarize the ambition. Less than GBP 100 million deals, a vast opportunity which we talked about. Huge addressable market. That's our bread and butter. We are gonna not only stay very good and very capable of that space. We are going to get even better in that space. Let's look at the other 62% of the market for us, and we've got a breakdown of 2021 premium. I'm on page 52. Medium and larger deals, we absolutely are focused on taking a larger share of that market. We will opportunistically use DB partnering to do that. There's a strong appetite from us to do that. The important thing for me is that we are a fully mobilized platform for larger deals. That's gonna help us. If I'm gonna summarize where we're going, we expect to more than double volumes over the next three to five years. To really tie it up, we wanna be even better at our USP and take a larger share of the larger deal space. With that, I'm gonna hand over to David, please. Thank you. Great. Thank you all so much. I'm gonna wrap up the commentary quickly, so we've got plenty of time for Q&A. Just one final slide from me. As Clive shared earlier, the next three years in the DB market could be as big as the last 10 years combined. Just let that sink in for a moment. That's quite some statement. Of course, those forecasts are based on real market information that Clive and the LCP team have been gathering. Of course, a number of things need to come together to get to the top end of that range, but just gives you a sense of the scale of the opportunity. Then we transfer that or translate that into what it means for Just. That represents a unique opportunity for us to create shareholder value via the DB market, where not only is the market growing, but there's significant untapped potential, which hopefully both Rob and Pretty have helped you understand better. Our pricing discipline, our risk selection, and our extensive deal expertise through our over 250 transactions to date equip us to continue to grow whilst delivering attractive financial returns. As we execute on that growth strategy, rest assured that the capital discipline we've demonstrated over the last few years will continue. With the opportunities we see in front of us today, we are unsurprisingly reiterating our target to deliver 15% growth in underlying operating profit per annum on average over the medium term. With that, maybe invite Pretty, Rob, and Clive to sit in the chairs, and we'll throw it open to the floor for questions. Mandeep, first in. Yep. Thank you for the presentation and taking my questions. Three from me, please. First one's on volumes. Understand that the market opportunity is accelerated as more schemes are now in surplus, and therefore more schemes are targeting buyout versus partial buy-in. What impact will this have on the short term as these partial buy-ins are canceled? Are 2022 volumes now going to be less than the 35-40 billion consultants previously forecast? A question on constraints. Is the order of constraints on insurer appetite in line with Just order? Would have thought maybe capital may be a bit higher. Despite having strong, high solvency ratio, it would be important to remain capital sufficient in any given year. Or I guess another way of asking the question is, would you dip into capital stock to write new business? A final question for Clive on pricing. You mentioned the increase in demand may worsen value for money for pension schemes when it comes to pricing. At that stage, would it be unreasonable to compare value for money versus historic norms given the surge in demand, which will take many years to unwind? Great. Okay. A few questions there. In terms of any short-term impact on the market volumes for 2022, I'll let Clive comment on that one first. Yep. I think it's right to say that there will be less partial buy-ins than there were. I think it's probably not right to say there won't be any partial buy-ins. The thing that will be slightly different is those partial buy-ins that occur will occur at higher funding levels for pension schemes than maybe they did in the past. The simple reason for that is if you're pretty well-funded overall, you don't need to be running an LDI strategy with lots of leverage in it. You don't need to be holding lots of return-seeking assets to close the gap to full buyouts because you're not far away. I think you will see partial buy-ins occurring, and indeed, if you look at transactions that are in the market at the moment and have occurred already, there are still sort of a decent number that are happening, including some at scale. They're just for schemes that actually are fairly close to full buyouts, anyway. I think in terms of the impact for volumes for this year, I think it will start with a three overall, i.e. north of GBP 30 billion. Thanks, Clive. Just while you have the virtual mic, you know, will perceptions on the third question on what represents value for money, do you think that's going to shift? It's a good question on value for money because trustees and sponsors will always value value for money and affordability. The point being that if you can afford a full transaction, a full buyout transaction, even if it's offered and the value for money isn't as good as historic norms, are you still inclined to proceed or not? I think the answer to that is in some cases, yes, that will be true. But I think schemes and sponsors, an increasing trend is actually focusing very carefully on ownership of surplus. There's a lot of demand at the moment from trustees on discretionary increases as a response to the cost of living crisis. Guaranteed pension increases in many pension schemes are capped at 5% per annum. If you're in a position whereby you're fully funded on a buyout basis, one of the things you might actually be looking at if you're a trustee board that would mean you're still focused on value for money, is you're looking to see whether your surplus assets will actually enable you to purchase slightly more inflation protection, for example, for your members. Yeah. I think the answer is value for money will still be important, albeit for some schemes they can fully insure, that might be their primary overall goal nonetheless. Great. I'll start on the second one, but invite Pretty to chip in as well. Yeah, the constraints that Clive set out in his, based on industry surveying as to, you know, what's going to constrain supply of solution. Just to recap for everybody, in descending order was human capital first, access to reinsurance second, think it was assets and then capital. I think that was the way around it was. We'd agree with those top two, very much so. I think, you know, that's consistent with what we said at the half year and what we said at the March results as well, is just human capital is the binding constraint at the moment. Of course, human capital does also filter into reinsurers as well. I think there is an angle and an aspect there as well. Pretty in her comments, and I'll invite her to come in on that now, of course, outlined how we're seeking to increase our capacity. You know, this is where the links into technology and scalability comes in. I think Pretty maybe a bit more color on reinsurance because, you know, expanding our ability to do more reinsurance and more partners is key as well. Absolutely. Actually for us being so nimble around actually our use of funded reinsurance, it's a really important tool actually to be able to scale quickly if we need to be able to access capital when we, if we need to on doing very large transactions. I think we've got all the tools in place that we can do a nimble and constantly optimized take an optimized approach to deals as they come along, basically from a capital perspective as well. Just maybe the last comment I'll just add on top there. Back to the human capital point. This and Rob brought it out in his comments. This was something we recognized 3-4 years ago when it came to the smaller end of the market, is that providing that bulk quotation tool, something which can provide solutions to that underserved end of the market, is something we identified early. Still got further improvements to be made, just to let that be said. Just from what Rob shared here today, he's shown just how much progress we're making on that front. Just about Alan, I think. Yeah. Let's just. Cool. Thank you very much. Alan Devlin, Goldman Sachs. I've got three questions, I think. The first one was on this, you know, the buy-in versus buyout debate again. Just in what are the. I think you said the buy-in buyout was 50/50 in the past. In your forecast, what do you think that will go to? And what's the implications for that? 'Cause I assume buyouts are a bit more complicated to do if, you know, if the pension scheme's got, you know, private investments which aren't matching adjustment friendly. And what happens if the pension scheme's got a buy-in from an insurer? Does that just limit them to go with the I mean, could you just do a buyout if there was a little buy-in from L&G's in there, for example? Or does it just limit you to the insurer you've used in the past? My second question is on you know, you mentioned the human capital as being the number one constraint. Does that make a difference from how many schemes then get for every scheme, how many insurance companies bid on it? If there's eight insurers in the market, does it actually now in the future only, you know, two or three or less bid on each scheme? Just given the constraints from all the insurers and from the EBCs running the schemes. The third question is on investments. I think, you know, that was the third constraint mentioned. I think, you know, can probably give just five out of five stars for private investments or for matching the investments. Is that much of a constraint now given where yields have gone to? I would've thought that actually given, you know, gilts and corporate yields, you could actually, you know, either allocate more to liquid investments or take your time in reallocating the backlog to private investments. Is that gonna be a constraint in the next couple of years, or can insurers just leave it over time and reallocate given you're getting paid to hold liquids now? Thanks. Thanks very much. Just kind of carving those up, maybe Clive, you could talk about how you see buy-ins versus buyouts developing across the sector as a whole. Rob, you could explain a little bit how companies handle that transition from buy-in to buyout, when there might be a different insurer involved. We start off with those two bits. I think if you took 2023 volumes and look at the end of the year in terms of how many of those are full insurance covering all of the liabilities in the scheme versus doing a partial buy-in just covering some of the liabilities, my guess would probably be 2/3, 1/3 in favor of full insurance transactions versus partials. I think the reason why there's still a significant rump of partial buy-ins in there comes back to if you remember the slide with the interquartile range and the fact that there's about a quarter of schemes who are basically there and can afford full insurance already. That includes some very big pension plans. For them, because they don't need any more return because they're there already, and because they don't need any leverage in their LDI strategy, for them it might make perfect sense if you've got a GBP 15 billion scheme to carve it up into a number of partial transactions. I think you'll have a significant minority of partial buy-ins who are basically very well-funded schemes but are getting better value for money and just sort of pacing themselves over a small number of years, as overall. Yeah. On different transactions with different insurers, yeah, we're starting to see that happen quite a lot more in the market at the minute. The first transaction has pretty much been data cleanse predominantly anyway, so it does tend to focus on the second or third transaction. But where we are seeing that dynamic where we've got another insurer that's done partial buy-in and we've won the second buy-in, we have a transition manager that will help with the communications, the processes to ensure that it is all aligned, such that when you go out to members, both insurers are going out at the same time. The whole focus is to make sure excellent customer service, and we will put dedicated people that have done this on those cases. It's not a barrier. It's more around the communication that the scheme has to do. Mr. X has got L&G, Mr. Y has got Just, and here are the reasons for, but both are secure. That's the biggest thing that we do, and we talk about those communications with the trustees very early on. The scheme that insurer. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Member X will have a policy with Legal & General. Member Y will have a policy with Just. As I say, the communication of why both counterparties are as strong is the key critical bit. Second question is really about, yeah, how's human capital playing into the numbers, participating on each process? Maybe invite you first, Clive, from a kind of an independent perspective. Yeah. I mean, human capital is really tight across the board. We're lucky because we've got a big team. Certainly I think it's fair to say that for every firm in the market, irrespective of the size of your team, it's just a question of things are tight. It's just how tight are they? I think on the insurer side, I think we're seeing the same and the impacts. Also one of your other questions I think in terms of how many insurers might participate in a particular process because that triage process that all insurance companies go through will become increasingly important. In the past, if you were running a transaction for GBP 500 million, we would approach all eight insurers in the market and you would get anything from four to all eight of them participating. For Barloworld, there were seven insurers right at the start, just to give an example last year. In future, I think that human capacity means insurance companies will need to be quite disciplined and quite choosy in working out which schemes they're really well-placed to win and trustees will need to think about and actually sponsors too, what happens if only two or three insurers provide a quotation? Are we happy with that as a competitive process? I would say the answer to that is quite often yes because back to the very first question, people are thinking quite carefully about can I demonstrate good value for money and how do I show affordability? If you're fully funded on a buyout basis and the sponsor doesn't need to write a check, you may not actually mind if there have only been two insurers in your process as long as one of them can give you a price that doesn't need that sponsor check. I think there's a lot of interrelated dynamics there, but I think you will see a lot less people, a lot less insurers participating on average in many cases in the future. Great. Pretty Sagoo, do you want to just chat about how we've seen rising yields and how that's, you know, has it had any impact on the flow of investments supporting our deals? Yes. I don't know where to start on the assets actually 'cause there's a lot of stuff going on. Actually, so what we are seeing is more and more inquiries. Yields have really helped pension schemes. Funding ratios have been accelerated to be very high. We see more inquiries basically, and better funded schemes. Does that answer your question now? No. More on the. Asset side. Asset side. Investment. Okay. The flexibility around that you mean for assets? Yeah Backing the business. Actually, the handy thing for me is Paul Fulcher's investments team sits about 10 meters away. Actually, when we do see spreads going, credit spreads as well, liquid assets, bumping up a lot, it's very easy for me to walk over to him and say, "Hey, Paul. How are we gonna price the next 10 schemes we do?" That's really, really useful. Again, it's a process of constant optimization, right? We've got a deal. We've got a deal coming. This is the size. This is the shape of the liabilities. It's very easy for us to talk to the investment team to work out how we're gonna invest versus that scheme. The other really handy thing though is the rates had gone up. That has meant the pension schemes, especially the ones who've done LDI have had to in some cases liquidate assets they didn't necessarily want to. Actually the degree to which we can help those schemes with using those assets to help them along their buyout path as well as what they're doing on the LDI side. Again, having the investment team very close to the DB team is extremely useful for those conversations. Yeah. Last point on this slide. If you look at slide 50, there's a bit of an update on our progress year to date on sourcing illiquid assets, and that's, you know, bang on track and that we continue to see good flow into Q4 there. Yeah, Larissa, I think you were last time you were just there. Thank you. Larissa van Deventer from Barclays. Two questions. The first one, actually, while we're on illiquid assets, when you talk about illiquid, do you focus mainly on debt that supports illiquid projects? Or how do you think about your illiquid universe? The second question is, if you showed the slide where the market has dropped by about GBP 1 trillion, which is the number that everybody's throwing around. If it's fair to assume that the number of members hasn't gone down, it's just the value that's gone down, at what point do you run out of HR constraints within Just to reach that 15% operating earnings growth? More deals coming to market, so the value is the same or better, but the number of members arguably has increased by about 40, 50-odd%. Mm-hmm To get there. Where does Just run out of capacity constraints, or can you still make that 15% earnings growth? If I may be very facetious, actually, can I add a third question? Does the 15% hold under IFRS 17 on a CAGR basis, or do we restate the back one? Okay, good. Right. I think very sadly they're probably all for me. Although Andy's here, that's good. Sorry, Larissa. Your question, how do we think about and what's our debt, what's our universe look like? Is it always debt as part of bigger projects? It's not always. It's not always illiquid debt in, say, a big infrastructure project. There is a good amount of that coming along. If the direction of travel Solvency II reform remains positive, I think that might provide a little bit more spur of seeing more and more debt associated with infrastructure project being matching adjustment eligible for insurers like us. However, I think the key thing in our investment model is that we really are sourcing illiquid assets from a very wide range of asset classes. It really, by having it largely outsourced to a diverse range of specialist asset managers, we're not beholden to one particular asset class coming through at a period of time. You may find for a couple of month period that commercial real estate mortgages are offering really good risk-adjusted yields, then it could be infrastructure debt, then it could be very long dated ground rents, particularly linked to commercial properties. It really chops and changes all the time, Larissa. It's a very sophisticated market now. By having those broad and deep relationships with 14 asset managers, we get to see a lot. Paul Fulcher, if you remember Paul Fulcher and David Ramroop session from back in June, their team has been strengthened, and they are looking at a lot of opportunities right now. I think the second question is really driving at, you know, for how long can you deliver 15% per annum underlying operating profits on average? We feel very confident that, as you said, the DB market's got a long way to run. If you look at the projections that Clive shared, yes, they've got this big peak in the first three years, but of course there's uncertainty. You know, there's a kind of a minimum and an upper end of the range, but it doesn't fall off a cliff after that. A key point for Just is that we have huge untapped potential. Focusing on those transactions of more than, say, GBP 250 million, our market share there has only been 2% historically. There's massive opportunity for us to grow, and obviously our market share in the over GBP 1 billion transactions is precisely zero. There's a lot for us to go after which can drive that growth over the medium term. IFRS 17, yes. I'll let Andy, if you could do this one. Andy, how are we thinking about the 15% underlying profit growth target in the context of IFRS 17? Thank you. Yeah, you've mentioned the magic IFRS 17 words, so it comes to me. Effectively, what we are intending very simply under IFRS 17 is that the value of the new business, either what gets locked up as contractual service margin, we will continue to include in our operating profit. That will continue to deliver the 15% that we have set out. No change in terms of that profile going forward. Thanks, Andy. I wasn't sure whether your question on members was more about actually our member capacity. Yeah. Oh, pardon me. I misunderstood. It's all right. Yeah, no, it's your fault. Yeah, do you want me to take that? Sure. Please do. Yeah. Actually, I'm glad you asked that because, yes, we are trying to do more, but what we cannot compromise on is how we take care of those members. Actually, I talked about the team changes I've done around reinsurance, but actually the other thing we've done is greatly strengthen the two teams that take care of customers. One is the transitions team that basically helps pension schemes to transition their scheme into the Just world. Actually, the other team is the team that actually does work with the actual members. Actually, we partner with Mercer to our administration. We have a dedicated team at Mercer, just ring-fenced for Just. We've strengthened basically across the board anybody who takes care of customers. We have strengthened those teams. Thanks, Pretty. I think, Rhea, you were next. Yeah. Thanks. Rhea Shah, Deutsche Bank. Three questions for me. The first one is, what's the potential pipeline for Just for repeat transactions in the next three years or just in the medium term, I guess? The second one is, could recent changes in the number of schemes being able to come to market have any impact on the outlook for pension super funds? I guess this is more for Clive. The third one is, how many of the larger deals, so this is the GBP 1 billion-plus size deals, are you quoting for, and do you have any targets for success rate in the future years? Why don't we start off, I don't know if, Rob, you wanna share your view on, you know, how do we think about the future pipeline for repeat transactions over the medium term? Yeah. I'll start by saying that before 2020, the majority of our transactions were pensioner pension-only buy-ins, and some of those were just partial pension-only buy-ins. Grattan is a prime example where it's got GBP 500 million worth of liabilities, and we've transacted about 180. By that, you've still got another 200, 300, even with rising yields. If you take our 10 biggest clients before the rising yields, they had about GBP 8 billion-GBP 9 billion of liabilities still to be insured. Under Clive's thing, that's probably now nearer six or seven, but the pipeline is quite large. How quickly it comes depends on what route they decide to take. If they're gonna do partial pensioner buy-ins, it's a bigger prize much quicker. If they're gonna do full buyouts, they're probably, some of them, three to five years away. It's quite a sizable pipeline because, I must say, majority of our business so far, until the last two years, has been pensioner buy-ins. Clive, do you want to comment on the, yeah, pension fund consolidations? Yeah. It's a good question. Interesting one. It's changed. Those pension schemes who were focused on super fund transactions are effectively, in the main, now close to being able to insure an insured solution with an insurance company. I would say the super fund market still has a class of scheme that is absolutely suitable for. Actually what it will do is those pension schemes who were previously not funded as a pension super fund entry level have also benefited from rising funding levels. You're effectively everybody's moving up the hierarchy a little bit, and those schemes that really felt they couldn't even get to a super fund funding level might actually now find they've got an ability to do that. It's just not the same schemes that those super funds were talking to 6 or 12 months ago. Okay. Oh, yeah, billion-pound deals. Pretty Sagoo, how are we thinking about those and approaching those? Yeah. Actually, even before I arrived, we'd started to quote the odd billion-plus deal. Certainly we have deals we are pricing or getting ready to price going into the end of this year, beginning of next year. We'll be selective because we do need to be selective across the board, but we'll use our triage process in anger. There are processes coming along. We are active in those processes already. Mm-hmm. Of course, on those larger deals, we'll always consider the DB partnering as a potential option. Not a must-have, but an option. You've had a hand up a few times, Barrie. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Then Gordon, you can wrap it up, which would be quite progress. Hello, everybody. It's Barrie Cornes, Panmure Gordon. I've got three questions. The first one, just when you are pitching for new business, just perhaps you could tell me how important is price in the whole scheme of things for the market, versus other considerations? Secondly, in terms of the competitive process you've been in, where a scheme does go to an insurer but perhaps not Just, what are the reasons generally that you're losing out? My last question, I think throughout the presentation you've highlighted human capital being very important, and I just wondered how Just tends to retain its human capital and how you're gonna grow it to expand the business. Thank you. Brilliant. Great question. How important is price? Anyone can speak to that, but why don't we let Rob talk to that 'cause he's at the pointy end. Rob, how important is price? Price is number one. You've gotta be there or thereabouts to win these transactions. The dynamic interestingly starts to change when the schemes can fully afford buyouts and other things start to come in play. Because they're in surplus, it's how do you distribute that surplus? Price is affecting the members' benefits. I'd say it is the number one criteria. When it comes to number two, it's customer service, flexibility, innovation, and we think we're right up there on all of those. Great. We might as well pick up. Yeah, why do we lose, Rob? What's the- Price. That's a fairly simple one. Pretty, yes, in terms of our talent pool, how do we retain and how are we expanding it? It's a super good question because guess what? All insurers right now are hiring a lot. There is a competition for talent rather out there in a big way. Nevertheless, we've managed to attract quite a lot of people. I'll say this personally, it's a refreshing place to be at a provider that is really looking to grow. Actually, we give our people quite a lot of autonomy, spend a lot of time training them. We are creating a high-performing DB team, and I think that is creating some noise actually, positive noise which is helping us to recruit. Brilliant. Thank you, Pretty. Yeah, Gordon? Thanks. Yeah, I really enjoyed the presentation, Gordon Nixon, RBC. Back to the slide on insurer constraints, I mean, I was surprised capital was so far down the list. I mean, say, if you take LCP's forecast, that's GBP 230 billion over the next, or 2023 to 2025. Let's just ask, what's the capital requirement for that for the whole market now? Let's say, and obviously you've got low strain, but others don't have quite as low strain. Let's say it's 10%, 'cause you're not running these things at 100% solvency ratios. 10% of 230 is 23 billion. How is that funded? I mean, outside of annuity, sort of, back book cash flows, but I mean, how is that funded? Because it's quite a big number, especially relative to the market cap of the sector at the moment. The second question is, I can't not ask a question on life expectancy. You've obviously got the bulk quotation tool, live pricing. Just, I wondered, what are you? You say you're getting information from reinsurers. What are you assuming on rate of improvements? 'Cause that was mentioned that rate improvements are, you know, assuming a lower number. Maybe you can just talk about an answer relative to what the CMI have done in their tables. They've obviously ignored 2020 and 2021 data. What are you doing for your live pricing on life expectancy? Thank you. Okey-doke. Tricky one for us to answer, Gordon, how the industry's going to kind of step up to the plate on that. They've obviously got different business models, our competitors. Some of them are privately owned, so they've got access maybe readily to capital there. Others are very mature businesses that are throwing off a lot of capital. I'll be honest, I haven't done the math. As you might imagine, my answer's gonna be focused on Just. you know, we're very comfortable that with the, you know, very strong starting capital ratio, the improved and growing organic capital generation, we've got the tools in place that by continuing to enforce the same pricing discipline, the same low capital strain, we'll be able to meet our growth ambitions over not just those three years but beyond. but it's something we will, you know, as I said in my comments, we will be very, very focused on making sure we are living within our means and maintaining our capital discipline. CMI? Anyone be close to that? Rob? Talk about CMI. No. No. I tell you what, one thing, and I haven't seen where the CMI has landed on COVID and post-COVID, but certainly if you reinsure a lot of the longevity risk actually becomes less relevant. Where it does come through is where reinsurer pricing is. Actually there's a lot of competition actually between them, which actually just helps us. Yeah. I think it's helpful, it's supportive to reinsurers to help them sharpen their pencil on the terms they offer us. In the context of broader, Just obviously will look. We've got a fair amount of retained longevity risk on our retail business, less so on the DB business, and we'll update you on that in March. Great. Have we got some questions on. Yeah. In general, yeah. Yeah. A few questions. A few have been answered already. One from Farouk. Do we only take cash or do we take other assets during the transaction? We take lots of assets, not only cash. Yeah. Yep. Good. Getting better by the day. Yeah At trying to help pension schemes take even more variety of assets off of them. That was one of your ratios, wasn't it? Execution flexibility kind of fits in under that heading. Exactly. Yep. Sorry, that was Farouk at JPM. Then one from Naseeb at UBS, maybe Paul for Clive. What has happened to current pricing on deferreds and pensions in light of moves in gilts and spreads? For deferreds, we look at pricing relative to what yield is implied by the bulk annuity compared to gilts. At the moment, to insure deferreds, you can actually lock into the same yield that you can lock into on a gilt. The pricing, it's never been that good, and it's driven by that reinsurance improvement. For pensioners at the moment, you could lock in a return maybe 60 basis points a year better than the yield on gilts. Again, that's at a historically unprecedented level. Back to the very first question of the session, there probably is room for pension schemes to go down for the value for money to fall back a little bit and still, when you judge it by where it's been over the course of the last five years, it will still be better than that. Great. Well, listen, thank you all for your interest and your continued support. Particularly, please join me in thanking Pretty, Clive, Rob, and also Adam, who had to leave, as I just repeat myself, it's absolutely the busiest time of year for them. Really appreciate them for preparing excellent materials and leading the discussion today. Thank you for your time.