Well, Prudential has a very clear strategy, and it's always been to allocate capital with priority to areas where the returns on that capital can be the greatest, with a particular emphasis on Asia, because we believe that's what's one of the most attractive investment destinations in our industry. The AIA transaction was bang in the middle of this strategy, because it would have allowed us to accelerate, very significantly, our growth in Asia. We have been through a long process. We put to AIG a proposal at the end of last week, which the AIG management accepted and took to their Board, who turned it down. That was to our disappointment, but we remain committed to implementing our strategy, which is to grow primarily in Asia and as fast as we can. So the company is in rude health, doing very well. The results for '09 were excellent, and we have put out this morning an RNS with our 2010 results, covering five months, which show that the sales are up 27 per cent so far in 2010. So clearly, the AIA transaction has had no negative impact on our ability to conduct business and drive it forward. We've been very successful.

This transaction was absolutely the right thing to do. Prudential historically was modeled after AIA, let's be honest about it. The two companies have the same strategy, the same distribution model, two very strong brands in the region, so having an opportunity to acquire AIA was absolutely something to be pursued. We came very close. We came very close, to the point where the AIG management was completely in agreement with our final proposal, as I said. The AIG Board made a different decision. That's something we have to accept. And it doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do, to try. And if one tries, one must accept the possibility that one might fail. So that's what happened. But fundamentally, the company's doing very well. It stays focused on its strategy, which is to drive growth, drive profitable growth, particularly in Asia, and that's what we intend to do. And it's very much supported by our '09 results and our 2010 results.

Well, that's a very important question, of course, in every transaction, in every acquisition. The short answer is no. we offered a price of $35.5bn back in early March, March 1st. The environment has changed very, very significantly since then. Market levels have fallen. But more importantly, market volatility has exploded. And the point about market volatility is that it determines risk appetite. So what has shifted fundamentally across the period is the investors' risk appetite, so that by the time we got to late May and June, investors had reached a point where the original price, set in February-March, was not consistent with the world we live in now. The positive side of that is that it gives us a chance to go back to AIG, who's very aware of that as well, and to renegotiate a price successfully, taking it down from $35.5bn to $30.4bn, a very significant reduction, in excess of $5 bn, which was very well received by our shareholders, and who I think were so enthusiastic about that new agreement that, even after the talks stopped between AIG and us, they were still trying to find ways to resuscitate the conversations. So fundamentally, sorry that in the end the deal didn't happen. We still believe it was absolutely the right thing to do, fundamentally a great opportunity for our company and for our shareholders and it would have served them well during the years and decades ahead, but that was not to be. The AIG management shared that vision with us, to give to their Board, and their Board took a different view. But to go back to your original question, you have to assume that if $30bn was rejected in June, it certainly would have been rejected back in March, when markets were even higher.

As management, we have the simplest job in the world, the simplest job description. Our job is to maximise shareholder value. So I am always quite relaxed about this issue. If ever I became convinced that the break-up of the group would create more value for shareholders than other options, I would be sitting here recommending it. I am completely unemotional about it. We as a management, and the Board, don't believe today that the break-up is the best option for our shareholders. We believe that our strategy is sound, will create very significant value for our shareholders over time, and that they should hold onto their shares.