Matt Rider: Yes. Cor thanks. So for the VA business indeed by setting up this voluntary reserve we are reducing the RBC ratio by 15 percentage points, obviously more than made up by the TLB reinsurance transaction. It does have an impact on what we would expect for operating capital generation going forward. So you can think about it as €50 million a year round numbers over the next couple of years. Importantly, that’s not the reason why we did the transaction. We really want to set up that voluntary reserve mainly to stabilize the RBC ratio not to inflate our OCG. That’s not €“ yes. So yes, Lard reminds me that the €50 million OCG is indeed positive. You also sort of tacked on to that question is there an opportunity to do more of this sort of implying are we going to move this around quarter-by-quarter.
No. Actually we have a mechanism to be able to accomplish this, which we don’t want to touch for a number of years. This is not OCG management in any way. And we felt like that the level of voluntary reserves that we struck combined with the benefit that we’re getting from TLB, really optimizes the day one effect, operating capital generation and really risk management mainly on the RBC volatility. Your next question was with regards to hey, does the ASR transaction change something with the structure of our debt stack? The short answer is probably not in the short term, something that we want to work out over time. Importantly, we did say that there was about a €700 million reduction in leverage that we would expect or I should say up to €700 million but that will be for I think another day to revisit that one.
On the management actions Duncan, do you want to cover those?
Duncan Russell: Yes. Not an awful lot to add Cor apart from €“ we’ll have to wait and see. I mean one of the key philosophies we’ve had since the Capital Markets Day, two years ago is indeed to look for ways to improve net present value, particularly the financial assets. And as you’re aware over the last couple of years we’ve taken quite a lot of action whether that’s in the Netherlands or in the US. Just looking at the VA in isolation we extended the dynamic hedging, we implemented a lump-sum buyout program, we increased the fees on separate items , we implemented a long-term volatility assumption to reduce factory capital volatility, we increased the basket of indices within the hedge program to include NASDAQ to reduce further volatility and we announced reserve.
So just on that block of business we’ve done an awful lot. That’s before we take into account actually the long-term care and the life blocks. So we have a rhythm. We have a team in the US and also in the Netherlands and I’m confident that with that rhythm the team will find further out in the future.
Cor Kluis: Okay. Very clear. Thanks very much.
Operator: Thank you for your question. We are now taking our next question. The question is from David Barma from Exane. Please go ahead.
David Barma: Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. The first I have is on the US life segment, where you mentioned some higher persistency in parts of the portfolio. So we discussed that in the second quarter I think and my understanding was that loss assumptions were very low. So the comments in today’s release have any implications for reserving in the life book? That’s my first question. And the second one is on the Netherlands, where you flag again today some realized losses linked to assets sales to maintain the liquidity position. What’s the absolute amount of assets year-to-date that have been needed to maintain the liquidity position? And also could you help me understand the implications that this could have on ALM and the rerisking potential in the near-term? Thank you.
Lard Friese: Thank you, David. Matt you take both?
