Good morning all, welcome to the Prudential 2021 half-year results call. My name is Lydia, I'll be coordinating your call today, where you'll have the opportunity to ask a question. If you've joined us by phone would like to register a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. Alternatively, if you've joined via the webcast, please click on the questions tab above the slides. It's my pleasure to now hand you over to your host, Mike Wells, Group Chief Executive. Mike, please go ahead when you're ready. Thanks, Lydia. Welcome everybody to our conference call for our resilient 2021 term results and the news on Jackson. I'm delighted to be joined today by several members of our leadership team, including Mark FitzPatrick, our Group CFO and COO, as well as Nic Nicandrou, who's CEO of Asia, Ben Bulmer, who's interim CFO of Asia, and James Turner, who's our Group Chief Risk Officer. Welcome to them all. Make some short remarks, and then we'll go into Q&A. I appreciate the sheer number of companies reporting today, so we'll try and keep this tight, and thank you for joining us again. I appreciate it. First, I want to pay tribute to our staff and agents of the group that sadly have passed as a result of COVID, including a number since the year-end, and my condolences to their families and their loved ones. We're of course, taking steps, as you would expect, to support them and their families in this very difficult time. Notwithstanding that, our continued focus on our staff, their efforts to focus on customers, have proved incredibly adaptable and dedicated and resilient once again. I think on behalf of all of us, the management team, I want to record my thanks to all of them. They've really done a phenomenal job for you. You should just see by the breadth of the results and the amount of strategic work completed in this difficult environment. Turning to the key strategic priorities for 2021, to pursue at pace an independent Jackson, and then to enable our investors to fully benefit from the opportunities in Asia and Africa. On the first priority, we announced further substantial progress in the journey. As you know, on August 6th, the Jackson Form 10 listing was declared effective, so we've now called for a general meeting on the 27th of August. Again, subject to shareholder approval at that meeting, the proposed demerger will be complete on the 13th of September. The second priority following the completion of the proposed demerger of Jackson will be in the final phase of our transformation of Prudential into a pure play Asia and Africa group, which we think has exciting and substantial growth opportunities. Let's move in a bit to the details. Firstly, the Jackson demerger process is now in the final five weeks or so of execution. It'll come to market with the ticker JXN, and Jackson has a clear strategy to deliver shareholder returns in its first full year after demerger. We'll have an RBC ratio at or near the target range of 500%-525%. The management team is starting its formal marketing engagement and will host a virtual teach-in for the sell side on the 17th of August. You'll be hearing from them directly, up to and then post the day of the completion on September 13th. Secondly, our interim results. We had another resilient result, APE up 17%, new business profits up 25%, IFRS profit up 19%. This continues our track record of strong growth in all of our key metrics, despite the ongoing disruption in some of our markets due to COVID. I'd also point out that the growth market segment, which includes, for the first time Africa, is now making an increasingly difference in our results. Very pleased and proud of them. In terms of strategy, in our big growth markets, we continue to expand our distribution capabilities, product set, including in digital, to build out our capacity for 50 million clients. In our more developed and historic markets and those with substantial COVID disruption impact, we have to run a nimble business model, and we're making changes to take into account the operating environment. This means focusing on appropriate actions on efficiency, on staying close to existing customer bases, and so maintaining again that renewal premium and the associated embedded value. Looking forward, we expect the vaccination programs being rolled out to facilitate a gradual return to normal. That includes economic patterns. Although the pace and their effect are going to vary substantially, we think, by market. We expect Hong Kong and mainland China border to remain closed at least for the balance of the year. We also are considering still, the raising about $2.5 billion-$3 billion of equity following the completion of the proposed demerger of Jackson. In the long term, again, right business model, right markets, we have strong diverse local management teams and dedicated staff, I think, to drive substantial growth. Further out, we're focused on those large markets with significant structural demand drivers and opportunities to strengthen our position further. This next phase of our growth is all about discipline, execution, and consistency. Let's go to the Q&A session, and I realize that several of you in Europe, you've got a lot going on today. Let's open it up for questions and see what you want to talk about. Thank you. As a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad now. To withdraw your question, please press star followed by two. If you joined via the webcast, please click on the questions tab above the slides. Our first question comes from Fulin Liang of Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you. Congratulations on the very good set of results. I have three questions. The first one is, we noticed that the Singapore and China has been growingly important for the group. I just wonder actually, because in Hong Kong, when Hong Kong was the most important region, you had a bit of a backend loaded IFRS profit, kind of challenge from the Hong Kong with-profits business. I just wonder whether we will see the same situation in Singapore and China as they are catching up. That's the first one. Secondly is, in Hong Kong, from a quarter-to-quarter basis, your new business margin actually improved, despite that the U.S. yields actually went down during the quarter. I just wonder actually, could you just give a bit more color on what have you done to improve the margin in Hong Kong? The last question is, again, with Hong Kong. We understand that, because you have many of the high productivity agents actually specifically aiming for the mainland Chinese travelers to Hong Kong. I understand that they've been trying to transform themselves. As the lockdown actually extended, I just wonder whether we will see some kind of people movement for this bench of agents. Will they consider actually moving back to mainland China? Therefore, will impact your future sales once the lockdown actually lifted. Okay, thank you for those questions. The other way is maybe another question. What kind of support are you going to give to those mainland Chinese agents in Hong Kong? I think there's some structural differences in what our product sets are in those markets. Mark, why don't you address the cash flow and the embedded value signatures of Singapore and China to start, and then maybe Ben, if you'd talk about Q1, Q2 margins in Hong Kong and the health of agency and what we're seeing in Hong Kong itself. Mark, why don't you take the first question? Thank you. Thank you very much. In terms of Hong Kong U.K. style with profits funds, we have those in Hong Kong, we have those in Singapore as well. We don't really have it to the same extent in China. We wouldn't see that element of that kind of profile. In Singapore as well, in terms of the product mix, you'll see us actually starting to shift a little bit more towards linked products, going forward. A lot of on the health and protection component. We don't think it's the same size or same scale of back-end loading that we have in Hong Kong. Mike, that's the response to the first question. Okay. Ben, on margins in Hong Kong improving? Yeah. Thanks, Mike. The key thing there really has been the pivot to domestic protection business. We've been driving VHIS sales. That's where the government's encouraging private plans with tax concessions. We successfully launched a very popular medical product there. That's helped margins on the agency side of things. Equally though, on the bank insurance side, we've managed to pivot the bank to a greater concentration on health and protection offerings, and trying to meet customer needs, in that regard, as well as savings. A very strong business mix performance driving the Hong Kong margin. Thanks, Ben. Nic, you want to talk about health of agency in Hong Kong and? Sure. A number of initiatives are ongoing. Clearly our focus is continuing to have those agents engaged. What are the kind of things that we're doing? There's continuous training on new tools, particularly technology, as we pivot some of the tools that underpin onboarding fulfillment servicing to Pulse. Ben just referenced new products. Those new products are at the moment being made available to the domestic segment, but also have relevance to the MCH segment once the border reopens. There's training on new products. Continuing professional development and qualifications is key. Clearly they're required to do that every year. Just as an indication, even though the deadline for completing that for 2021 is 31 October, 80% of our predominantly Mainland China focused agents have already done it. That's a signal of intention that they want to maintain their contract with us as we go forward. A large proportion have also pivoted to starting to do a share of domestic business led by or fed by the leads from Pulse. We've had 800,000 downloads. The vast majority of those are new to Pru users. We've been able to distribute some of them to agents that perhaps in the past have solely focused on Mainland China. We are confident that they will return, as I said, because they continue to keep active is high. The final point I would make is that there's still significant amounts that are being paid to them, in the form of trail commission for business that's been written effectively before the border was closed, and significant amounts that are due to them through long-term incentive plans that have been issued that come to rest in March 2022, that come to rest in March 2023. There's a lot of both financial incentives, but also operational activity, which supports our confidence that they're engaged and they're waiting for the border to open. In the meantime. Thanks, Nic. Thank you for those questions. Obviously, we're pursuing and gearing up to pursue some of the opportunities that come with GBA initiatives as well. Lydia, next question, if we could, please. Of course. The next question comes from Kailesh Mistry of HSBC. Your line is open. Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. Good morning and good afternoon. First one is on user value in China. Obviously, you had strong performance in the first quarter, moderated in the second quarter, but overall it is still probably much better than the industry. Can you provide some color on why you feel you outperformed on that front? Is it simply your distribution is more stable? Outside of the first quarter in China again, are you experiencing the same customer reluctance for buying long-term protection, and the move towards short-term health? That is the first question. The second question is again, on Pulse in China. Does the sort of development on the regulatory side with respect to data regulation, internet regulation, et cetera, in any way affect your desire or ability to eventually operate in that market? Thirdly, once the demerger is completed, what strategies can you employ to increase the stock's appeal in Hong Kong? Obviously, you've got the capital raise, which can help to improve stock liquidity. Is there anything that you can do in your power to get included in stock indices, and Stock Connect? Yeah. All right. Nic, I'm going to bring it back to you on mix in China and some of the success we're having there, and why it's outpacing the market by the leverages. Let me address Pulse directly. With the data regulations, what you see with customer data, first of all, you comply with everyone's regulation, every market you're in. There's tremendous consistency, though, between what is the E.U. standard we originally built our data models effectively to internally and then what the Chinese regulations are. The differences are things on reporting frequency of it, or a cycle of a breach being immediate instead of 72 hours, things like that. They're not materially different. You're seeing this, I think, for everybody's benefit with capital regulatory models, too. There's a convergence in principle. No, there's nothing. The data is country by country, so our group-wide supervisor doesn't see all the data we have in different markets. Every regulator wants data protection locally. Clouds tend to be adjusted locally. We use this independent cloud, for example, with Alibaba in China. Those models are national in structure for the most part, and certainly the management of the data. The primary pressure on data protection is consumer. If you think about it's a trust factor, and so our focus on that is are we protecting the consumer data? Are we accessing only parts of it that a customer would be comfortable with? As we get more and more data about customers, we discuss this a lot as a management team. We discuss it in our boardroom. We have ethics policies on AI as well as data privacy. Candidly, I think they exceed the market requirements because you're dealing with a consumer relationship here that's incredibly valuable to us. It's fragile if you make a mistake in that space. I think that's our overarching standard. From a country-to-country point of view, I would say there's an intersect and the demands not dissimilar to what you're seeing with the various capital models. Every regulator we have in every market expects data privacy to be maintained and is unaccepting of a breach. Then access is hypothetical and who's going to want what, and there certainly isn't anything coming out of China on insurance that's concerning to us. No, it's not affecting our view of Pulse options in China. On that, and I'll just touch quickly on the liquidity. Liquidity on the exchange, trading on the exchange in Hong Kong are key elements for indexation inclusion and Stock Connect. I think our shareholders understand that, and I think the interest we're getting from investors in Asia, we'll see how much trade's there. The requirements are public, and we know what they are, and one of the benefits, I think, of the equity raise is it could help us approach that. We clearly see value in both those two structural changes. We'd like to see them happen. Other than that, I can't comment on where people will trade. That's a shareholder decision. As you see more coverage moving to Asia, as you see more investors coming from Asia, I think there's a natural trend towards Hong Kong liquidity. Hopefully the equity raise accelerates that a bit. Nic, you want to talk about China, the success we're having versus the market, and the first question, if you would? Sure. Hi, Kailesh. The good returns or the high returns that we've achieved in the half, I guess in the second quarter, are really a function of the kind of products that we are pushing that are long duration products, health and protection. The fact that we've got both our channels, whether that's the agency channel, and indeed the bank channel, are appropriately trained and equipped to continue to sell those. It's no more complicated than that. That's really what's driving us retaining healthy margins in the high 70%-low 80% on agency, and in the 40% on the bank insurance side. We're adding relationships. We are strict with agents in terms of the mix and the quantum of business that they write, enforcing contract maintenance rules. We have not really introduced products that are shorter in duration. We're keeping the discipline. Kailesh, thank you. Appreciate the questions. Thank you. Our next question is from Farooq Hanif of Credit Suisse. Farooq, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, everybody. Yes, congratulations from me, too. Just on your GWS model, can you just talk about the downward interest rate sensitivity? I mean, it's really high. Not that anybody's talking about lower yields anymore, but just wanted to understand that asymmetric nature. Secondly, also on GWS, what is the capacity for debt that could be grandfathered if you wanted to increase? How close to limits are you on the GWS framework? Thirdly, can you talk a little bit about the COVID-19 claims risk? I mean, health and mortality claims risk in 2H going forward, and whether that will become a material drag on your reported IFRS earnings. Thanks. Farooq, thank you. Mark, I'm going to have you handle the first two and Nic the third. The general comment on the claims, Farooq, is I think what you're seeing is still where we're 55,000 claims, both medical and death is not a number we want to see. It's a fraction of what we'd normally see in medical claims, so we're still running below those levels. I'll let Nic give you a little more color. Mark, do you want to talk about GWS, the rate sensitivity and the debt structure in it, what's admissible, et cetera? Yep, certainly. Farooq, hi there. In terms of the interest rate stress, the 50 basis points fall in rates really would ordinarily kind of slightly increase surplus as the high asset values are kind of only partially offset by the higher liabilities. At the lower rate, effectively sensitivity of the Hong Kong liabilities to change in the VIR are based on a more prudent NPV basis, resulting in a duration, the kind of liabilities that's longer than the asset duration. We're very comfortable with that. Actually, the way it's shifted in terms of Q1 versus Q2, we're comfortable with the direction of that particular piece, that particular component. It is a slightly larger number than some of the others, but actually at the level we're at, it's not something that's causing us any particular concerns at all. As regards to the limit, the limits in terms of the capital structure, we're actually fine. In terms of how those are positioned, in terms of the senior debt, we're very pleased that the HKIA agreed to that and approved that component. You're seeing that coming through. We're very comfortable. We've kind of met all our tests with good headroom, so we have no concerns in terms of that particular piece. Okay. Just following up very quickly on interest rate stress. Basically, you're saying it's convexity because of the real environment in Hong Kong on that with profit put. Correct. All right. Thank you very much. Nic, you want to give a little more color on claims, if you would? Sure. 55,000 claims since the start of the pandemic, just to give you maybe some additional data points. 18,000 of those were last year. In the first half of this year, you've seen that number go up to 37,000. Of these, there has been, if you like, an acceleration, but it's still relatively small when it comes to the totality of the business as usual type claims that we face in a normal year. Pre-pandemic, we were paying 110,000 claims cases a month. Normal claims are still not yet back at that 110,000. They dropped to 90,000 last year. They're back up to 100,000. That's what we're seeing. 90% of the COVID related claims, if I can go back to the 50,000, come from Indonesia and India. Indonesia has been a market which has borne the brunt of both hospitalization and death claims. 70% of those cases were from Indonesia, 20% of those cases were from India. The rest of the markets, more modest. With fully jabbed proportion of the population only 10% in both of those markets. The single jab are 10% in India, 20% in Indonesia. It's still likely that we'll see some more COVID-related claims, particularly in those two markets as we go into the second half of the year. Basically, just your frequency benefit, otherwise, has absorbed this? Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Overall, we're still positive in terms of experience. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Farooq. Thank you. Larissa van Deventer of Barclays has also registered a question. Larissa, please go ahead. Thank you. I'd like to focus on the impact of COVID in the second half and growth, please. On the impact of COVID, you did mention that it is still an issue in some of your markets. Can you please give us an indication of the areas where you're most concerned, and the impact it's having on demand for products in those areas? Then on organic growth, you mentioned that as your first priority for deploying capital. What is currently taking up most capital, and can you give us more insight as to where your preference would be to deploy, especially in light of the capital raise you plan to do later in the year? Most certainly do that. Nic, you want to talk about markets that are most impacted, and Mark talk about the use of capital? I think the overarching comment on the capital is we fund growth. There is no market that we're restricting on organic growth, but I'll let Mark give you a little color on deployment of that capital in just a second. Nic, you want to do COVID impact and impact on demand and some of the product innovations and things we're doing to address that? Okay. No, thank you, and hello, Larissa. Hi. In the appendix slides that we posted up on our website, there are two, and I'll reference them now. I'll just talk you through some of the key messages that effectively speak to your question. That's slide 30, that is a normal chart that we show on the severity of COVID by market over a time period. Slide 31, which is the vaccination rates. We've extended this to cover July and August. It's up to speed. What started in India in April and May quickly transferred to other parts of Southeast Asia. Where we are today is countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines are at, if you like, the highest level of infections that we've seen pretty much through the pandemic. Indonesia has come off a peak. Clearly India has come off a peak. Only amongst our markets, the ones that are looking a little more normal are Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Where the impact will be more noticeable, I guess, in terms of the restrictions, is a combination of a red color on slide 29, which is the most severe restrictions, and a low vaccination rate. The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, where vaccination rates are still relatively low. The double-jab people are anything between mid to low single digits to teens. A high rate or a severe rate of infection is where we're seeing some challenges. Malaysia, whilst challenged, is very fast vaccinating its population. Any impact will be relatively short-lived. That's really the picture that we're seeing now. Clearly, against that backdrop, why you've seen the resilience of our performance through the second quarter, where, as I said, which was probably the worst quarter so far since COVID started. What's giving us the resilience? It's new products that we've launched. If you go back the last 18 months, we've launched more than 270 products. 180 of those are health and protection. Many standalone protection products, much simpler products are looking to appeal to first-time buyers, particularly from the mass segment. The use of Pulse, the number of downloads, and now our increased ability to convert those users into sales, $156 million through agency. The extension of bank relationships, the professionalizing of agency. Also more importantly, the use of virtual face-to-face technology. That's critical from both channels. In agency in the second quarter, nearly half the business that was the cases that were written were done virtually. In banks, that was 26%. If we look at June specifically, the numbers were 60% in agency and closer to 35 in bank. The familiarity of both the distributors, but also the ease with which consumers are now prepared to do business through that virtual face-to-face is also giving resilience to our businesses. That's the landscape as we see it as we go into the third quarter. Thank you. Is it fair to assume then that although it may be going worse from an infection perspective, it is unlikely to be as bad as the first lockdowns we saw with city sales volume? Well, as I said, vaccination rate is improving. If we look across our markets, the percentage of people that have had at least one dose, at the end of the 1st quarter, that number was low single-digit. That jumped to around 24%. This is across all our markets, right? By the time we got to the end of June, the very latest figure is 30%. Again, at one level you can say the pace is one and that gives more confidence at 1 level. At another way of looking at it, 30% is still low. As I said, for the vast majority of places, still a single jab. I can't tell you whether it's going to be worse or not, but Q2 was pretty bad. In terms of the backdrop, and in a number of markets, I said Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, the infections are still at a high level. Thank you. Mark, do you want to talk about capital deployment? Sure. Larissa, hi, good afternoon. In terms of capital deployment, our capital allocation framework really is, I suppose, defined by the opportunities we see for profitable growth in each market. As we've set out, we see the most significant opportunities for growth in life insurance and asset management in the four largest economies in our footprint. Those, as we've called out, are China, Indonesia, and Thailand. We do apply the same rigorous capital allocation and pricing disciplines to both organic and inorganic. Typically, we see higher risk-adjusted returns from the organic investments. Now, vis-à-vis the equity raise that we're considering, the intention around that is effectively to accelerate delevering, which would then provide the flexibility to pursue opportunities for further growth, enable us to do more, and consider more through the capital allocation framework. The capital allocation framework is core and center to what we do, how we do it, and we spend a lot of time with the board going through that in terms of shaping our thinking. Thank you. If you say you're looking to accelerate deleveraging, does that mean that you may consider doing early redemptions on your debt? We've highlighted that there's about $2.25 billion worth of debt that's past its first call date. Relatively expensive debt. That would be the debt that we would probably look to move on first. That would bring our leverage down on a pro forma basis to low 20s. That would save interest cost of about $125 million per annum thereabouts. Thank you very much. Thanks for the questions. Thank you. We'll now go over to Patrick Bowes, who will be reading out your questions from the webcast. Thank you, Lydia. There are three questions, Mike. First question is from Temasek. Could you please share more color on the potential equity financing post the demerger and the targeted size range for the new issuance? Second question is from Justin Floor at PSG in South Africa. Two questions on Pulse. What are the penetration rates you're expecting as a% of APE? What value of new business margin do you earn on Pulse sales in the past quarter, and how are the economics evolving? Thirdly, from CreditSights in Singapore. Please confirm whether any conditions surrounding the grandfathering of debt under GWS, and does the regulatory capital last for the remaining duration of the bonds? That's it. Okay. Mark, I'll let you discuss the credit we're getting for debt in GWS. On the equity financing, we've said $2.5 billion-$3 billion is the target. We're staying with those comments. We think that's appropriate given some of the comments Mark's made today on what we'd like to do with capital for, again, retiring debt and just increased financial flexibility. Justin, on Pulse, it's roughly 10% of APE now in the markets it's available in. It's early days on some of the other metrics. I appreciate it's a fair challenge. Do you value this like an insurance company or earnings or dot-com sort of metrics? What we're seeing for sure is high interest in the platform, a decade younger consumers coming on the platform, and we have some freemium to premium services, if you will. Effectively zero margin. Relatively low acquisition cost of clients and very effective acquisition of clients, and then it's produced millions of leads for our agency channel. I think we've nodded clearly that we're looking to add wealth components to it next. The front end of Pulse, and I say that, and those are all consumer-facing elements of Pulse. What's definitely measurable is an absolute increase in new client count to Prudential at age brackets we weren't seeing before or harder to get to before. Consumers definitely like some of the interactive tools on it that allow everything from symptoms checker to telemedicine to, in some markets, it's got digital payment capability where you take a market like Indonesia, that's a key element socially, not just health inclusion, but financial inclusion. On the back-end side, which we don't talk about as much, there's operational efficiencies as we move more and more of the operating platforms to these more cloud-based, tech-light sort of product models, which should, over time, bring our operating expenses down and our ability to, for product generation faster, marginal cost lower, all of the sorts of economies of scale you'd expect. That's a journey we're on. We're not there yet. We're still working that hard, and that's one of our ambitions. I think, as I've said on previous calls, an element of the service being mobile-based, instead of just calling it digital for a second with consumers, insurers have been a little late, too. There's various arguments for that. One is you often only interact with an insurer a couple of times a year. I've heard others. We think in the very short-term future, very close in, it's a client expectation, and that we're seeing is much more frequent interaction with that, with Pulse. That's a good thing for the business model, and that's a good thing for us to adjust our offerings to consumers as we see what they need, and it's getting us to go into channels and partner with digital providers we haven't partnered with before to make Pulse available and our services available. I think it's too early to draw value of new client metrics constantly. Some of these are blended as we're digitizing all of our channels. I don't want to give you a target yet on them. We just know they're all growing. They're growing by age cohort, usage, all the things that we'd want to see, and we'll continue to, as we think that the stats are old enough and mature enough, we'll give them to you. Right now, I think there's just early days to get any more granular than effectively 10% of APE in the markets where we have Pulse available. Again, that's primarily through the agency channel. That's equity, that's Pulse. Mark, you want to talk about grandfather terms on debt structures with the regulator? Sure. In terms of grandfathering of debt, we have grandfathering of the debt for 10 years, and then the credit amortizes 20% per annum for the following five years. I think if you look at the debt stack, that covers pretty much all but one of our debt. We have lots of opportunity to refinance it if required before grandfathering expires. I'm very comfortable with where we are and no conditions other than that. Patrick, any more questions? I appreciate it's a busy day for people. No. Back to Lydia. Thank you. Next question comes from Andrew Crean of Autonomous. Andrew, please go ahead. Your line is open. Good morning, everyone. I had three questions, if I could. Firstly, are you prepared to say now or perhaps in the future, the boundaries on your LCSM coverage ratio as to what you feel you're comfortable operating within? Secondly, coming back on this issue, I noticed that with-profits is about just over half the reserves, but then it contributes about 3% of the profits, the traditional with-profits. Do you think as you move into the new world, that it would be worth considering closing the with-profits funds and writing shareholder-backed participating business, which has got higher and earlier cash emergence? Thirdly, as you come down to an Asian business, what are you thinking and sharing with people about the layers of management at the top? Okay. At the very top, I guess, is me. Let me address the last one, and then Mark, I'll have you address the other two, if you would. Andrew, good morning. You're going to continue to see us evolve the business model and the structure of the operating model. We got a lot of work to do still. Again, we've brought down, as you've watched, the central cost. We have about 60% of our home office roles now in Hong Kong, the balance in London. No intent of closing London. We'll delayer the organization and combine roles as we've continued to do over the last few years as the structure warrants and as the workflows warrant. We're not making any announcements on that today, and I think you've seen us give targets on the cost side. The business model will reflect. We think the targets we've given you give us plenty of room for an appropriate management structure for the business going forward. I would say that the needs of the business have evolved. You've seen us, again, we spend more on digital. How it's structured is different than some of our competitors. The major business units that we have in Asia, we expect to run as if they were listed with no intention of listing them. They're very well built out. You've seen us use the structure of growth markets where our home office and our teams support them more because they're earlier in their development, not necessarily early in the development of the market, but sometimes it's that, sometimes it's our position there is newer, in the case of Africa, for example. We're putting more resources there that would be considered "home office." I think it's going to stay a dynamic model. We'll keep it fit for purpose in number of people, including senior people, and we'll keep it fit for purpose on expenses, and we're pretty clear on our targets. Mark, do you want to talk about boundaries on LCSM? We have no intention of closing with profits, but do you want to talk about the shareholder versus with-profits question? Certainly. Andrew, hi, good afternoon. Firstly, in terms of the GWS, as it is now called, in terms of the capital regime, that regime is now three months old. I am probably going to let it kind of marinate, mature, if you will, for a little bit before we start looking at the element of any kind of boundaries or layers. We are very comfortable with the 383%, and we will continue to work with the regulator and see how the market publishes its numbers in due course, and just make sure that we are in a good place. We are very comfortable with where we are with the GWS coverage ratio. Will you be going to Hong Kong? Sorry, just on that, would you be going to the Hong Kong RBC early adoption this time next year? Andrew, great question in terms of Hong Kong RBC. We are working closely with the Hong Kong Insurance Authority on the RBC. We do expect Pillar 1 rules to be finalized this year. The HKIA are currently developing plans to enable early adoption, and we're working closely with them. We are very keen to adopt an economic capital regime that's aligned to our capital allocation framework. We think that'll reflect the business very well. We are working closely with that, and we remain optimistic in terms of timing on that particular patch. On the with-profits fund, so a couple of points. Firstly, what Mike said, look, we're not looking to close the with-profits fund. It generates good shareholder IRRs, both do, both shareholder backed and the with-profits fund. We have started, we started the back end of last year, shifting some of our mix more from with-profits fund to more shareholder backed. Exactly what it is you're saying. You've started to see that come through. You'll see that coming through as we continue more of that pivot. We think it's good to have an appropriate balance between the with-profits fund and the shareholders funds. The strength of the with-profits fund is an incredible competitive advantage. It gives our customers great comfort seeing the strength of that, seeing the cover that that has, seeing the performance of that fund, and seeing the element of support that it can actually give consumers. It's good for consumers, it's good for agents in terms of selling the product. We're looking to try and make sure we have an appropriate balance, but we are definitely looking to shift that balance to create more shareholder backed. That was one of the things that we highlighted when we spoke about the pivot about this time last year. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Andrew. Our next question comes from Greig Paterson of KBW. Greig, your line is open. Morning, gentlemen. Can you hear me? Hi, Greig. Thanks, Greig. How's it? Hope all is good and safe. Three questions. One is, it always puzzled me. You've got $34 billion of Asian value of in-force. I'm sure the reinsurance companies would love to securitize that in the form of financial reinsurance. Why did you not make tap that sort of capital as opposed to an equity raise, which typically it doesn't go down so well with the shareholder base. That's question one. Second one is, in terms of China and India and Pulse, where you previously you've said, because those markets, I don't believe you have the Babylon relationship, and I think Nic said a while back that they would consider buying into a Babylon relationship in those two markets. I was wondering what the price tag would be on that. Thirdly, IFRS 17, I know last time was in Hong Kong, spoke to Hong Kong players. They're all concerned about the whole project, the size of it and the implications. I wonder if you could just update us on your IFRS 17 plans and implications as it pertained to Asia. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Greig. I'm going to let Mark, I'm going to let you have IFRS 17, and just for everyone on the call, what we hear repeatedly is the investors are the ones that want that. Apparently, we're doing that for you. On the reinsurance first, I think Greig, it's a hypothetical question of which would have a lower cost of capital or what the demand will be for the equity. I think it's probably a better debate after the equity raise. We'll see how we do. We think there's a lot of interest in the company, and we think we can successfully raise equity. Again, that's to be seen. Let's debate that on the next call, I think is probably fairer. We've not disclosed the Pulse economics, but we do have the option if we want to go into China and India with Pulse. You're going to customize it for different markets, so there's different considerations in both those markets going in. That's a decision that I would say we're still reviewing and creating the optionality to do. Clearly, the demand for digitally supported health inclusion is there. We've learned a lot in the last couple of years. We think it's a competitive advantage, obviously, or we wouldn't have focused on it the way we have. We have views on what you would do in the two markets, and for just competitive reasons, I don't want to get into it, but they wouldn't be. We've not done Pulse. There is no one Pulse platform from the consumer end. We've adjusted it to every market we're in that it's available, and that's not just language or cultural factors. That's the types of services that are more important in that market. That could be addressing the lack or existence of, say, a government program for health or retirement, or that could be the existence of digital payment. For example, in China, that's our entire business is on digital Alipay and WeChat versus a market like Indonesia where digital payments in its infancy is but a critical element of development. The OVO relationship is very important there. We customize it in every kit. For China and India in particular, you would want to customize it. There is virtual doctor type services are not new to China. There's fragmented players in India. Some of the AI technology we have around self-diagnosis, symptoms checker, the Babylon type, some of the other features we have in it would clearly be valuable in those markets. We're still looking hard at that. If we do it, we want to succeed, and we want to succeed at scale. The contract with Babylon would not be a barrier in either market for us. I don't want to get into the economics with them. We haven't been public with that. Mark, IFRS 17, you want to talk about some of the elements around it? Right. I'll try and keep this tight just in the interest of time. Greig, I think IFRS 17, you and I have discussed my views in it and where it is always in. Generally speaking, I think we're in a good place. We're spending a lot of time on IFRS 17. It's a large scale project. It's a complex project, but we've got great guys on the ground. We're getting great support from people and very detailed plans, and we're getting through those, and we're executing per our plans. We will look to be able to update the market at the appropriate time, and we're very keen to make sure that we give you and investors a good run into IFRS 17 in terms of shape, in terms of the decisions we've made, in terms of the impact and implications around those decisions and shape and numbers and things like that. It is a big change. It's a big data project, firstly, and then secondly, an element of technical accounting piece. We're making good progress on it across the patch. As I said, we'll be able to share some stuff with you in due course. Yeah, just one point. Just on that securitization of the VIF, either it's traded in the markets or via reinsurance vehicle. Am I correct in there is capacity to release capital from that $34 billion of VIF, and it is material? Well, Greig, we have a good VIF. We have a very strong VIF. Securitization can be expensive, can be less inclined to try and flesh out an answer on a hypothetical, to be honest. We've set out our stall in terms of our route, what we believe we want to do. We think the route of raising equity in the way that we're advocating is important for numerous elements, not least, to be able to help address some of the focus in terms of Asia, getting greater interest in Asia, as regards one of the questions from one of the analysts earlier this morning, getting people more focused on it. One of the ways to do that is to raise a significant sum of money in Asia to get people to look at us and to focus on us a little bit in a different way. I think that's where our component is in terms of where we're at. All right. Excellent. Thank you. Thanks, Greg. Cheers. Yep. Cheers. The next question comes from Blair Stewart of Bank of America. Blair, please go ahead. Thanks very much. I've got two questions. Firstly, you've talked in the past about the relationship between the recurring in-force premium base and profits growth, and indeed, the two have moved very closely together. The recurring premium base, I think is broadly flat year-on-year in H1, and it was only up about 6% last year. Clearly, there's been a dislocation between that and profits growth. I just wonder if you could talk about the reasons why you've managed to achieve double-digit profits growth in the first half of the year against a flat and actually slightly down recurring premium base. Is it simply the fact that I think claims frequency, Nic, you talked about was about 10% below normal levels. Is it simply that? Secondly, just on cash. Mark, thanks for the slide on cash. I see there was just over $1 billion of cash remitted in the first half of the year. You've made some comments around that saying that that's possibly a bit more than you would normally expect. I just wonder if you could flesh that out a little bit in terms of what we should expect from cash remittances as we go forward. Thanks very much. Thanks, Blair. Mark, I guess both of those are yours. Okay, Blair, the element of the recurring premium component has got an element of with profits and shareholder-backed component. Effectively what we have, for example, at the moment, if you strip out the with profits component, renewal premiums, you'll see are actually up 8%. The delta between that and the 11% is really an element of fee income, and that helps close the gap. In my slides supporting my script for the set piece earlier on today, there's a bit of a bridge in terms of the IFRS earnings, and you'll see those are the key components. Hong Kong, there was a high 2016 sales of a 5 Pay with profits component. That's reached its paid cycle. The policy remains in place until it lapses. The policies, they will continue to generate some IFRS profits, but no renewal premiums from that particular piece. It really is the shareholder component. If you strip that out, you'll get renewal premiums that are up 8%, and therefore that helps to bridge the gap. On the cash piece, I think what we're looking at on the element of the cash, yes, we did bring up more in the first half than we're expecting in the second half. Cash outlays in the first half higher, A, because of some of the banc assurance, the ad hoc, some of the payment with UOB, and with Vietnam, and then also the more regular banc assurance payment tends to be more front-end loaded to the beginning of the year. That together with the second interim dividend for FY 2020 being paid in the first half, meant actually we wanted to bring more up in this half versus next half. I'm expecting next half to be considerably lower, but again, my element is we take up what we look at, what we need, and what our requirements are. At this stage, I'm expecting those to be significantly lower than the level we had in the first half. Thanks, Mark. Can I come back on the recurring premium point? Is the lower frequency, I think the 10% that Nic referenced, is that not a relevant factor? Secondly, with the maturing of the 5-pay policies that you sold in 2016, did that create some additional profit as you got the bonus element of those maturities? On the second piece, first, Blair, those policies haven't really lapsed. They kind of carry on for longer in terms of duration. It's not that they have lapsed. There's no pickup from the with-profits in terms of a terminal bonus component at all on that particular piece. In terms of claims, as Nic said earlier on in the call, there is still an element of a kind of a tailwind from the claims level because it's still below the expected, but it's not as much as that we saw last year. If I can add maybe, Mark. Blair, it's Nic here. Yes, the recurring premium. I think what Mark has said, if you exclude the par bit and you look purely at the shareholder back, there is a continuation of the slope. Of course, we also make money in the first year of new business as well for health and protection products. Those have grown significantly. On slide 45, you'll see in the middle top, effectively a life weighted, which premium for the shareholder-backed business. That bridges more closely, if you like, to the IFRS progression that you referenced. Thank you. Thanks, Blair. Thank you. Our next question comes from Dom O'Mahony of BNP Paribas. Dom, the floor is yours. Thank you. Hi, folks. Hope you're all doing well. Three questions, if that's okay. Firstly, just coming back to the GWS capital regime. What sort of disclosure do you think we're going to get on these? Are we expecting anything equivalent to an SFCR? Is there any chance you might give us a level of detail on the components of capital and capital requirement, maybe by market? Secondly, on China, in terms of the Greater Bay Area initiative, Mark, you mentioned that earlier and the opportunity there. As you look at progress on Insurance Connect and when you look at other sort of equivalents, so for instance, Wealth Management Connect, what are you learning about the direction of travel there? Third question, in China, we're expecting C-ROSS II, I think, to the beginning of next year. Some commentary in the press that the industry may need to raise capital or at least that capital ratios will decline. What's your perspective on that? Thank you. Okay. Mark, I'll let you do GWS. Ben, I'm going to have you do the C-ROSS. Generally, the capital regimes in China have been additive to our net positions. I'll let Ben give you a little color on that. On GBA, I think what you're seeing that's clear is from Beijing down, it's held out as an important project. That's important in China, just from an execution point of view, because you've got endorsement from it from the top. Different than Wealth Management Connect. I think you're seeing, I would say more different than Stock Connect as well. You're seeing a move towards what will be a little more flexible architecture. Instead of trying to build to a specific product, there's a lot of discussion around a more dynamic pipeline, if you will, for the Connect element. We're involved in those conversations. I don't want to cross disclosure conversations with various regulators and then get them uncomfortable. We think the direction of travel is good. We've said all along that we thought service was the initial element, claims, et cetera. I think that's probably still true. Again, there's a lot of support for the project, and I think my strong view is it's additive for Prudential and some of the products and services that are going to be in it go to our core strengths. We're staying as close to it as we can, and so far I think we're well positioned in it. I think the real change, I guess, in the last few months has been a move away from trying to get it too product specific. If you think of the term insurance, it's a bit like when we say agent. It can really have a lot of different meanings, and there's no reason the technology needs to limit that. I think that's probably the biggest. How we connect, we're getting a little different perspective in, and again, we're in the midst of that, so I don't want to disclose any competitive or regulatory elements to it. I think you'll see a more flexible pipeline than some of the previous Connect models. Sorry for the dance around a bit on it, but I don't want to give a competitor or two ideas of what we're working on there. On the per country allocate, Mark, do you want to talk about the capital? Ben, would you follow up, please, with the next iteration of C-ROSS and how it affects us? Sure. Dom, hi there. In terms of the GWS, there will be a public document. We think it'll be published in about May next year. The requirements aren't quite the same as in SFCR. There's not the same kind of detailed template that was included in the SFCR that you might be used to from the U.K. component. We will be publishing something in May next year as per the GWS requirements. Therefore, that'll give you a little bit of extra color in terms of some of the building blocks. Ben? Thanks, Mark. Ben? Yeah. Thanks, Mark. Hi, Dom. You're right. We're expecting C-ROSS II to come in 1st of January 2022. We're actually still awaiting the final rules to be published. Under C-ROSS II, what you see is capital being classified as either core or supplementary, depending upon loss absorbing capacity, level of subordination, and so on. That's going to give rise to two ratios, a core and a comprehensive. What we expect to see is the core ratio falling across the industry. That's because C-ROSS II introduces a cap on the amount of negative reserves that can be counted as core capital. Along with that fall, though, the MCR is also falling. Based on where we are today, w e see CPL business there remaining very well capitalized under both core and comprehensive bases. We're not anticipating any change in business strategy as a result of C-ROSS II coming in. Very clear. Thank you very much. Thanks, Ben. Thanks for the question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Abid Hussain of Shore Capital. Please go ahead. Oh, hello. Hi there. I think I've got two questions remaining for me. Just coming back to the equity raise, can you just remind us how you arrived at the $2.5 billion-$3 billion equity raise number? I ask really because after the deleveraging, it doesn't really actually leave you with much room for the inorganic opportunities that you might see in China, India, Thailand, and elsewhere. The second question is on Pulse. Can you just share with us what the ROI and the payback period on your investment in Pulse is? Related to that, I know you don't have Pulse in China. Are you actively considering Pulse for China, or are you screening competitor platforms there? Thank you. On the equity raise, no, the intent was not to fund major inorganic. It does certainly give us room to do a lot of the small things we do with banks that would be below an equity or debt raise or in some of the digital work we're doing. I think it does increase our financial flexibility, and clearly, it'll continue to fund organic. You're correct that we are not attempting to raise a war chest, if you will, for some of the unique opportunities we have to deploy capital at scale. China, India, some of our JVs, et cetera, even now in Africa. I think that's a different consideration, different point in time, and we'll deal with those when both the regulatory and counterparty and strategy and pricing all meet. On Pulse, we would not disclose the metrics on it. I'm not in a position to answer that today. The products that we're selling through the agency channel are normal margins. I guess the general comment I'd tell you is relative to other metrics we're seeing in the digital space, not necessarily the insurance space. We're very happy with client acquisition costs. I think in the early days, a key driver, we're doing something that's efficient from a tech platform. We're not getting ourselves on cost of funds and things. I think it's disciplined, but we're not in a position yet until it's a more mature model in terms of value in new clients, and we got quarters of data instead of just a relatively short period of time here. We're holding back on disclosure on it. The sales we're talking about are in our normal margins full channel. As far as Pulse in China and India, they're both actively under consideration. We have a variety of ways we can do that. You would customize the platform for both markets very differently. Again, as we've customized Pulse for every market we've rolled it out in now, I think I mentioned this earlier, it's not just language or virtual medical providers, et cetera. It's also other needs in that market that you can address with this ecosystem, and that can be anything from financial inclusion to remember we launched Pulse in Malaysia with a dengue fever predictive mapping technology because that was the primary concern pre-COVID in the market. Again, there's markets where that has relevance, there's markets where it doesn't. We have a variety of tools and other things we can add to it that changes the shape of what's the Pulse offering. We've also nodded that in a couple of our markets, you're going to see a wealth piece attached to Pulse. The reason that we think that's logical is, we always talk about this 40% of spend on health in Asia is out of pocket. Clearly, there's a high use of digital by consumers in the markets, regardless of the per capita household income. When you're starting to get the consumer to say, "Instead of saving for a health event or retirement, I'll use some of that with an insurance product," you are talking about their savings now. It's a logical extension for us to have, we think, some investment options, some wealth options on the platform. When they're considering, again, de-risking that cash position, maybe we can improve the return on that for them. That's the next iteration. Again, it'll be market by market, and we're very intentionally not trying to have a single Pulse platform across the region. We think that would be a little tone-deaf, if you will. We want to customize it for each market. China and India would have their own, and do have their own specific requirements if we're going to succeed with a platform there. We're not announcing a launch in either at this point. We're still looking at our options and addressing various concerns, regulatory, structure, technology, et cetera, before we make that decision. Okay. Can I just quickly come back on the equity raise? Just to be clear, it seems like you would be happy to come back to the capital markets if a large inorganic opportunity did come your way. Well, if we thought it was the right price, the right deal, yes. It's an interesting question, some of the options we've created. You can look at them sort of glass half full, half empty. I think we're unique in that we've created for our shareholders a series of what are effectively hybrid inorganic options, where we can deploy capital at scale at some point in the future. The difference between these and traditional inorganic is these are businesses we know incredibly well. They're effectively integrated or partially integrated now. Due diligence risk, execution risk, all those sorts of things are a fraction of a standard relationship that came for sale, that one of the banks on the phone took to market and every insurer in the region was fighting over, and we do those, too. These are really unique execution opportunities for us at some point in the future, but we're not saying when. It's not that we're aware. The price has got to be right. We've got to view it as an appropriate time for all of our stakeholders. As you see with the metrics with China sales, for example, up 29%, new business profits 65%, it's working now. We're not missing anything by not executing on one of. I think they're a unique portfolio to deploy capital very effectively, not just efficiently in that they're much lower risk than someone trying to do something cold and buying something and seeing what's in it later, which is a risk on traditional inorganic. It's why a lot of M&A fails. I really like the options we have in front of us, and these are partnerships, and we know the businesses well, and we know how to integrate and all of the above. Would we come back later? Yes. Do we have any plans to do that in the near future? No. We'll just see when that is, or we may have the capital in-house to do it at the time. I really like the option set that we've created over time. I think it's unique for an insurer globally. That makes sense. Thanks for the conversation. Appreciate it. Thanks for the question. Thank you. We have two questions left today. The first question comes from Ashik Musaddi of JP Morgan. Ashik, please go ahead. Thank you, and good morning, Mark. Good morning, Mike. Just a couple of questions I have is, first of all, in Indonesia, I think Nic mentioned that there is definitely some sort of COVID-related impact in terms of claims. Is it possible to get a bit more color as to the drop in earnings in Indonesia? How much of that is driven because of the extra claims, and how much of that is driven just because of lower economic activity? Any thought from that would be helpful to understand a bit more underlying dynamics. Secondly, the profitability in markets like Philippines, Thailand, have been relatively very strong. If I look at Philippines, it's up like 40%. If I look at Thailand, it's up 20%. Last year was as well, like last year first half, it was strongly up as well, both these geographies. What is driving such a trend? Is it like COVID is not really impacting these markets at all, or is it any other dynamics that we should be aware of? Thank you. Thanks, Ashik. Nic, do you want to address Indonesia and maybe we'll let Ben talk about the growing value we're seeing in Philippines and Thailand? You guys can mix that up as you see fit. I think either one of you, fine on either question. Nic, why don't you go first on Indonesia? What all is working there, and what challenges are there? As I said earlier, 70% of all the claims that we saw on COVID came from Indonesia. The year-on-year impact of those claims, a lot of them were weighted the first half of this year. The year-on-year impact of those claims was of the order of $30 million. That's the effect that's come through that particular line. In relation to the other two, maybe I'll do it, I'll do it quickly. What's driving Philippines is a very disciplined operational delivery. We have the largest agency force in the market. We are increasingly selling more health and protection business. APE was up 55%. H&P within that was up by more. 96% of everything we sell in Philippines is regular premium, long duration business. Customer retention is running at 95% in the first half. A young business in an under-penetrated market got to number one in the year through all the disciplines that you've seen us adopt across the piece. Thailand, what supported the growth and profitability of that business, and remains the case is, Thailand is effectively a banker business. Two relationships, Thanachart and TMB, now TTB. The profitability has been supported again, not only by reference to regular premium business. Regular premium business is 92% of our mix. Historically, it was the credit life that we attached to anything between 80% and 90% of all the loans that Thanachart Bank was making. Now, clearly, we have a bigger platform to attach that to through the TTB relationships. Of course, the number of loans at the moment in Thailand is down as people aren't focused on buying cars and motorcycles. What's sustaining our profitability of that business is now with the extended relationship. You would have seen at the capital markets day, we've launched many other type of health and protection products, which we're selling to their customer base. The health and protection mix has grown in that business to around 30%. Again, normal disciplines, but through that tied relationship, a good sale of H&P. That's very clear. Thank you. Thanks, Ashik. Thank you. Our last question comes from Colm Kelly of UBS. Colm, please go ahead. Thanks a lot. Firstly, on Asia growth, obviously strong numbers today. It's clear the shift to health and protection and its growth is going to be continuing to be one of the key drivers to outperform on expectations around sales growth margins and new business profit. For the Asia growth strategy in totality, you've identified four markets you think have the highest growth potential. I'm just wondering for the health and protection strategy, more specifically, can you highlight those specific markets where you think the highest growth potential exists to accelerate from here? The second question is related to Jackson. Obviously you revalued the Jackson valuation and the embedded value to reflect more fair value, which is fairly obvious. It's fair to say, look, that's quite a bit below the prior embedded value valuation for that business. Clearly a disconnect did emerge between the external valuation of that business versus Prudential's own valuation for it. When we think about the go forward group, this is important because embedded value is the framework you emphasize for Asia, and you're also raising equity. Aside from continuing to deliver strongly on growth and operationally, what steps are being taken, be it disclosure or otherwise, to increase the likelihood that investors and external participants will be more aligned to how you see the value of Asia based on that embedded value framework you have. Just lastly, on regulatory capital changes. Between C-ROSS and Hong Kong RBC, et cetera, there's a lot of changes going on in Asia, which is likely going to continue some time. Experience from the U.S. and from European markets suggests that moving to risk-based capital regimes tends to benefit those with limited or low guarantee business, limited ALM mismatches from an interest rate perspective, and also low credit risk exposure. They tend to be the relative winners from these type of regulatory transitions. When I look at Prudential on all three of those metrics, the business screens particularly well based on the work we have done. Perhaps, can you give a bit of commentary around that in terms of your low credit sensitivities, your ALM mismatches appear to be somewhat limited, and the level of guarantee business in Asia is very low. Perhaps some color from yourselves would be helpful just to contextualize how the business is positioned for the broader regulatory capital changes that are happening in Asia. That's it from me. Thank you. Okay. Thanks for those. Nic, I'm going to come back to you on the health and protection markets you think have the most upside right now, and Mark on the Jackson embedded value. I mostly agree with your comment on the regulatory. I do think it's not an accident that we're well-positioned. We de-emphasize spread product, we like the interest rate sensitivity of the health and protection as well as the profit signature of it and the other things we're doing. I think where I disagree with you a little bit in the change in Asia is what you're actually seeing is a convergence, you flag it correctly. They're all going to what is effectively an RBC regime. There's different elements of it, different executions of it. There's always this discussion about international capital standards in the U.S. and the Europeans. I've watched this fight my whole career. They can't agree mostly because of annuities. The principles are now pretty much global, and the meeting of the regulators globally, Asia has taken a much larger role in that. They are looking at things like, if you're taking credit or liquidity risk, you need to hold more capital. If your spread business has got more risk to your capital base than a unit-linked product. All the normal, historic, not normal, the historic Western views are coming through. There's differences on how they look at rate, market consistency, things like that, but you can look through those pretty easily. I think if you look at C-ROSS, if you look at RBC in Hong Kong, there's the same fundamental message to the insurers, which is, if you're writing product that is spread-based, and you're taking credit risk or duration risk, you're going to need to hold a lot more capital. That's a maturing of the models. Again, Ben mentioned this. It's not having a lot of impact on us in any market. It's generally a tailwind for us. I agree with you on all those three lenses are all the right ones, and we're very pleased, and it's intentional. We are where we are. I think that where I would, again, to finish the disagreement is, I think once you get through this round of individual markets adjusting, you've got all the major markets mostly aligned on an RBC regime, and I don't think you're going to see material changes in, knock on wood, in regulatory from here. There isn't a new Solvency II coming or anything on the horizon. There are, as it was referenced earlier in the call, there are material changes. An IFRS 17 project isn't small. All of these give stakeholders a more comparable lens on the insurers in the region, and none of them give you a single number that you can use to compare companies, right? That's always been the, I think, the holy grail of some of these regulatory conferences. Yeah, they're just similar companies. You're going to have to look at them individually, even with the alignment of the work in markets. That rant aside, Nic, do you want to talk about which markets you see the greatest demand in health and protection from here, and then Mark, please, on Jackson embedded value? Okay. Thank you, Mike. Hi, Colm. When we look across all our markets in Asia, and we aggregate the trends that we see, you see two things. One is that healthcare costs, healthcare consumption has increased at a rate of 13% per annum over the last 10 years. The last time the published stats were available, that was for the first time over $1 billion across the markets. 43% of that is out of pocket. When you consider the population and the consumption in India, China, Indonesia, and Thailand, if you like, four of the most populous, they contribute the lion's share of the numbers that I've just quoted. All of them have significant gaps that can be protected. What makes it more immediate in China and Thailand is the fact that this is coupled with an aging population. People are living longer. A bigger part of the population is over 65. They have more incidents. There's an increase in the level of communicable diseases. The critical illness type cover and the medical cover that is needed by the population of China and Thailand is significant. Indonesia and India are a slightly younger population. Nevertheless, the access to public health is often gated by being able to cover the incident that you're coming in. You have, particularly in Indonesia, an Islamic segment that is largely under-penetrated, with the biggest insurer, 400,000 customers. By a long way, number one player in that market. Yes. There's a huge opportunity there for any forms, particularly medical insurance. In India, insurance is something new for consumers. Our business, our JV, is the number one writer for protection in that market on an individual basis, certainly amongst private players with a 16% market share. We've got great capabilities and great opportunities in all four of them. We're excited about the opportunity to execute against those. I could have made similar statements elsewhere, which is why it's such a priority in our business strategy historically and also going forward. Thanks. Nic. Mark, on embedded value? Yeah. Colm, on the U.S. piece, the U.S. discount is not pretty specific. I think you'll see significant kind of industry discounts to book value and the like. It's the way I think the market is looking at the U.S. industry as a whole. As for the level of embedded value disclosure, at the full year from March. We have increased quite significantly the level of detail and sensitivities to be able to allow investors to be able to make their own judgments in terms of embedded value and the like. Ultimately, the test, as we said, is what is the overall picture in terms of variances? Typically, our variances are and have been positive over the last kind of 10 years or so. Thank you for the question. Okay. Are you anticipating further disclosure for Asia from here as there was good progress in the full year? Should we expect to see a bit more of an evolution through this for the next full year, perhaps? I think what we'll do is we'll continue to keep it under review, not making any firm commitments at this stage. We'll look to see in terms of how we may continue to evolve it as we do with the balance of our disclosures. Okay, that's great. Thanks a lot, all three, and well done today. Thank you very much. Appreciate the questions. Lydia, that's our last one, correct? Yep, that was the last question. I'll hand back over to you. Thank you. Appreciate the help today. Well, I hope you see with these interim results, those of you that participated in our virtual investor day that we held in June, that this year it highlights our prospects, I think, despite the complexity of the current operating environment. You've heard about the expanding customer focus capability, the cultural shift, the modernization of Prudential, and we're ready to be a standalone Asia Africa business. I'm confident in the long-term structural drivers we've discussed today and our strong position, again, discussed today to benefit from them. Appreciate your support, appreciate your patience with the structural work, and thank you very much for your time today, and we'll sign off now. Thank you very much for joining us today. This concludes today's call, and you may now disconnect your lines.