Operator: Thank you for your question. We are now taking the next question. The question from Robin van den Broek from Mediobanca. Please go ahead.
Robin van den Broek: Yes. Good morning, everybody. I’m sorry if I ask something you mentioned in your introductionary remarks, but my line got cut off a few times. My first question is around the management actions in the US. I mean clearly it’s raising your absolute level of RBC in local units, but besides that it’s also reducing your volatility towards equity markets for the US as a whole. So my guess is that that should be quite remittance positive for the group. And I was wondering if you could give any commentary around that and also includes the potential for regular buybacks in that narrative? I mean, we’ve heard what you had to say last week after the Aegon deal. So we can expect quite material buybacks after H1 next year probably.
I was just wondering, how this management action could affect your decision taking there already at the Q4 stage. Then, secondly, I think on the group ratio, you have some diversification benefits that dropped some Tier 3 eligibility issues. Did — I mean, with the Dutch units coming out, I think, the diversification benefits will probably drop further. So just wondering if that was already reflected in last week’s guidance on your group Solvency II ratio. And in relation to that should we even care about your group Solvency II ratio after the Dutch unit basically has transferred? I guess, the answer to the question is no, but I was just wondering about the reasoning. And maybe a follow-up question on the OCG bridge. I think, last quarter you did get guidance.
I guess, now you’re not doing it, because of all the deal uncertainty and you just want to, yes, have better visibility on the variables. Is that the reason, or are there other reasons to not give any guidance? Thank you.
Lard Friese: We did it for this year, but not for next year. Matt, over to you.
Matt Rider: Yes. With respect to the management actions you have it exactly right. So the Transamerica Life reviewed reinsurance deal will add about 30 percentage points to the RBC ratio and then we’re effectively using 15 percentage points of that to fund voluntary reserves. So your question is, that’s got to be remittance positive. Well, it’s certainly cash flow positive for the US business and that’s the intention here is, that we wanted to increase the solvency level of the US, but also to provide some level of funding for future growth, let’s say. And then, if we get that growth, fantastic, that means we would have done our jobs and we would have written new business profitably. That’s a good thing. If we don’t get that growth, then we revert back to our normal capital management policy, where, if we have excess capital sitting in the country units then it comes up to the group.
