Thank you for standing by and welcome to the ANZ Institutional Business Roundtable. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to Ms. Jill Campbell. Please go ahead.
Thanks, Kayleigh. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to ANZ's Institutional Markets Business presentation. I'm Jill Campbell, ANZ's Head of IR. We're presenting today in the lands of the Wurundjeri people, and on behalf of the team, I pay my respects to elders past and present. The session is being recorded. It will be available for replay via the ANZ website later today. The presentation pack being used was sent around to you all earlier today. It's also available on the ANZ website in both the Shareholder Center and the Analyst Toolkit, and in the presentations section. We've got three speakers this morning: Group Executive, Institutional Mark Whelan, our MD Markets Anshul Sidher, and the Institutional Division CFO Ramesh Subramaniam. They'll speak for around 25 minutes, after which we'll go to Q&A. We're going to aim to finish around noon, but we're conscious that we don't want to cut questions off.
So in the hopefully unlikely event that you didn't get your question in, please contact the IR team this afternoon, and we'll sort that out. With that, I'll hand it across to you, Mark.
Terrific. Thanks, Jill. Welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. The main purpose of today is to talk to you about our markets business, building on the session we had in September last year on our payments and platforms business. We'll explain what it is we do, what we've been investing in, and what makes our markets business different to its peers. Now, we're going to keep it relatively high-level today, but there will be opportunities to go into more detail in the Q&A and also in future sessions. Markets is a critical element of our customer proposition for institutional customers, and it's very high-returning. Our markets team is a whole-of-bank resource with global distribution capability supporting retail, commercial, and institutional customers. As mentioned in the payments and platforms session last year, our institutional business is well-placed to grow profitably and support our customers globally.
The institutional business has transformed since 2016, and today is a very different business. As an example, today's revenues are evenly spread across our three core products, with transaction banking, corporate finance, and markets each contributing one-third of revenues each. Last year, each product line achieved more than AUD 2 billion in revenue. In comparison, in 2016, 45% of our revenue came from capital-heavy loans in corporate finance. So you can see that we've really transformed the spread of business. As well as diversifying revenue streams, we have focused on quality of our people and risk management. Today, our employee engagement scores are at world-best benchmarks, and our risk management processes and being accountable for all elements of risk is part of our culture. As a result, credit losses have reduced in line with our focus on risk management and, most importantly, the quality of our customer base.
We are focused on 6,300 high-quality customers who value our product, services, and network. We are focused on priority sectors with the highest return and growth prospects. Financial service and funds is an example. We've developed long-term and deep relationships with the best customers globally. Return on risk-weighted assets is now more than double than that of where it was in 2016 at 1.59%. We've invested in global technology platforms carefully and consistently over the past seven years, simplifying our tech stack and ensuring we're well-positioned for what comes next. The institutional business today is very different and is well-positioned to maintain strong returns going forward. The business mix, quality customer base, and culture are all drivers of this business.
We're using our high-returning geographic network and particularly our access to Asian markets to give us a unique competitive advantage and customer proposition, and this is particularly true for our markets business. Now, as I've mentioned, we've invested in technology and systems over the long term. As we discussed at the September payments and platforms briefing, we have simplified the network and technology supporting our business. We've invested in connecting single product platforms that are globally integrated right across our network. We call this the Digital Backbone of our business, and it allows our teams to work easily together regardless of where they are located. Our FX team in Jakarta uses the same tools and customer information as our markets teams in Singapore or in New York. We have one credit management system for our large customers, one global trade system, one global loan system, and one customer onboarding system.
In markets, we use a system we developed called SKY for markets pricing, valuation, profit loss, and risk management. It's used by our markets team, group treasury, finance, and risk teams globally. Much like our payments infrastructure, it was developed in-house. As a result, we've retired 134 technology assets and systems supporting the markets business over the past eight years. We've invested consistently in our technology systems and will continue to invest in our strategic platforms. Consequently, we've got a strong base that we use to create value for customers and shareholders and also, importantly, to manage our risk. As a result, we believe our network is unparalleled. A network of 29 markets, particularly focused on the Asia-Pacific region and connected through the Digital Backbone, provides us with a unique and powerful differentiation where domestic and international competitors.
When you add together the components of this business, a leading payments and cash management business, which we took you through last year, a geographically diverse and specialized markets team, deep relationships with customers resulting in them naming ANZ as the most reliable source of funding, and long-term and careful investment in technology, it's clear that our strategy is adding value for customers and shareholders. We're a more diverse business than ever before, but more importantly, a high-returning business with sustainable opportunities. Now, the markets business delivered AUD 2.1 billion in revenue last year. So I'd like to introduce Anshul Sidher to you.
Anshul was appointed Managing Director of Markets in August of last year. In just a few moments, Anshul will take you through the drivers of that revenue and the strategic relevance of our markets offering. He'll be followed by Ramesh Subramaniam, Chief Financial Officer for ANZ and Institutional.
Ramesh will then explain how markets operations impact the group Net Interest Margin, which is a technical issue that some of you have asked for more detail on. With that, I'll hand over to you, Anshul.
Thanks, Mark, and good morning, everyone. My name is Anshul Sidher, and I have taken on the MD markets role in August of last year. Just a brief background. I've been with ANZ since 2012, starting off as the global head of rates and setting up the local markets business in Asia. Over the last decade, my responsibilities at ANZ have spanned across leading our trading functions, which included the balance sheet, our capital market business, and our sales franchise in Asia. Prior to joining ANZ, I was in similar roles at Barclays Capital, Dresdner Kleinwort, and Citibank in Singapore, London, and Frankfurt. Today, I will briefly talk to you about our markets business, the revenue drivers, and our strategic direction. ANZ has the largest markets business amongst the domestic major banks. What's unique is that 60% of markets income comes from outside of Australia and New Zealand.
We deliver around 10% of ANZ Group revenues, but the nuance is the business has the ability to produce strong results in both low-interest rate environments like 2020 as well as higher-interest rate environments like 2023. Now, growing our returns and doing that consistently is a real priority for markets as well as the institutional bank. Now, there are really two components to the ANZ Markets business. First is our customer-driven activity across sales, trading, and capital market functions, providing financing, hedging, and investment solutions, what we call franchise in our results. The other component is really the work we do to manage ANZ's balance sheet under delegation from ANZ Group Treasury. In a sense, markets is really the portfolio manager for the bank where we optimize our liquidity portfolio and also manage the asset liability mismatch on our balance sheet across all our divisions.
For today's briefing, I'll give a bit more detail around our franchise activity, which accounts for somewhere between 65%-70% of markets revenue through the cycle. I'll talk you through four key business lines and the propositions they offer to our customers. So starting off first with our foreign exchange business, which has close to around AUD 700 million of revenue through the cycle, is our largest and highest-returning business. Now, in a highly decentralized market like foreign exchange, competitive advantages come from really having access to deep pools of liquidity. Our unique geographic footprint and connectivity across our retail, commercial, and international client base forms the foundation of our price competitiveness in Aussie and Kiwi foreign exchange. We have built much of our foreign exchange infrastructure in-house, and unlike competitors, we don't rely on white-label tools to derive pricing.
We have invested over AUD 75 million in our foreign exchange infrastructure in just the last five years to build out the proprietary technology. Now, that gives us a degree of protection from margin compression in what are really competitive G10 foreign exchange markets. We are the number one bank in foreign exchange by market penetration and market share, as has been reported in the Peter Lee Associates Corporate Survey in Australia. Now, another unique part of our foreign exchange business at ANZ is really the local markets foreign exchange business in Asia, serving primarily our multinational clients in the network. Much of the local markets foreign exchange suite services trade, expense, and dividend hedging for large-cap corporate customers while also offering offshore risk management solutions for our investor client base, which ranges from banks to insurance companies.
Now, today, trading in local markets spans from CNH in North Asia to INR or Indian Rupee or Indonesian Rupiah in India and Indonesia and has grown to be almost 80% the size of our G10 foreign exchange trading business. Moving on to rates, which delivers around AUD 400 million annually in revenue and is centered on serving our corporate clients in Australia and New Zealand. Our key proposition in rates comes through our network where we connect Australian and Kiwi corporates, governments, and our own treasury to differentiated pools of global liquidity. To give you an example, we link Aussie and Kiwi borrowers with central banks who manage these currencies as Aussie and Kiwi as part of their reserve management mandates and also insurance customers in Asia.
These activities in the primary loan and bond market create flows in currency swaps, and ANZ is recognized as the market leader in currency swaps by the Peter Lee Survey. Much like foreign exchange, we also have a unique local market rate business in Asia supporting our clients in the network while also offering a diverse set of markets for risk expression in interest rate trading. What that helps us is really produce better-quality trading returns at a much more diversified and lower VAR. Now, closely tied to rates is our fixed income business in credit. ANZ is the go-to house for investment-grade credit in the Eastern Hemisphere. We rank number one in primary market league tables in Australia and New Zealand and number one in the investment-grade secondary trading across Australia and New Zealand and Asia.
Our unique positioning in covering bonds across Australia, New Zealand, and Asia makes us the bank of choice for asset managers who deal in investment-grade credit in the Asian time zone. Now, right from super funds in Australia to large fixed income fund managers and bank balance sheets in Asia, ANZ is the port of call for offering and recycling high-grade bonds through our deep secondary market connectivity. Our strategy of linking primary origination backed by strong secondary trading support also makes us a valuable partner for primary market issuers who value the liquidity service we bring to their debt as a market maker. Another pillar of our credit franchise beyond capital markets and secondary trading is our securitization business in Australia, servicing primary market placement of residential mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities.
Across our debt capital markets, secondary, and securitization businesses, the credit business generates circa AUD 200 million in revenue through the cycle. Finally, commodities. Our commodity business is centered around two key propositions: precious metals and energy trading, which includes carbon trading. We'll talk a bit more about precious a bit later when we cover net interest margin, so I'll focus on our energy and carbon trading capabilities here. Now, unlike some of the Australian commodity majors, ANZ's business focuses on commodity supply chains between Australia and Asia, providing risk hedging solutions to commodity producers and consumers while recycling risk in the region. Typical transactions involve connecting producer and end-consumer hedging flows across upstream producers in Australia, midstream distributors in Singapore and Southeast Asia, and the downstream consumers in North Asia, which makes the propositions unique.
We're also growing our offering in carbon capabilities to support carbon abatement and sequestering projects with a focus on carbon trading in Australia. This remains an important part of our environmental markets offering where we closely partner with our loan originating teams in corporate finance. So in summary, the way I think about a markets business is that it's the most flexible way for the group to deploy a balance sheet, whether it be between cash and derivatives or between asset inventory or bond liabilities packaged as investment products. With that background, I will briefly cover the strategic imperatives which we have outlined in the material we had presented on page 12 in the pack. Across our asset classes, foreign exchange and rates contribute more than 75% of our customer-led revenue through the cycle.
We have a unique opportunity because of our network and customer flows to distribute Australian and New Zealand flow globally and to do that digitally. So we are focused on continuing to build out our foreign exchange and rate capabilities as they create what I call scale in the core of the markets business. Then we have a credit and liquids business, which tends to do well in risk-off environments, especially given ANZ's high-grade credit focus. Now, we intend to maintain what I would call capabilities do well in risk-off environments with a focus on more fee-based revenue lines in both credit and capital markets. And finally, what we call procyclical businesses or businesses which do well in inflationary environments like commodities or even capabilities like repo securities financing and parts of our options business offer the diversification we need to deliver results consistently.
We'll be looking to add selective pockets of diversified capabilities to enable us to ride economic cycles better. Now, before I wrap up, that leads me to NIM. I have with me Ramesh Subramaniam, our Division CFO, who will give you a more in-depth view of Markets Net Interest Margin. Now, just a brief word on that before I hand over. Our gold bullion lending business has some very specific implications for our NIM. I would like to make a few simple points. Our bullion lending business is really focused on servicing our financial institution clients and is a very important part of our service offering. The NIM aspect of the bullion lending is very nuanced because gold, unlike currencies, is a zero-interest asset. What that means is that the forward curve for gold is upward sloping.
Or to keep it simple, the higher the level of interest rate, the steeper the forward price of gold. So when we make these loans in bullion or gold, we incur a funding cost that sits in the NII as an interest expense. However, the way we recoup those costs is through the forward contracts in our derivative books, which feeds into other operating income. So what really happens is that between the funding cost and the derivative return, we are able to produce significantly higher returns well above our cost of capital. So with that, I will pass on to Ramesh to take you through Markets in more detail.
Thanks, Anshul, and good morning, everyone. So now I'll turn to the technical issue of how markets' activities flow through to group revenue and how this impacts the group net interest margin. This impact and the classification of revenue between net interest income or NII and other operating income, OOI, is technical. So I'll first start with three high-level points. First, as Anshul said, the markets' business is run to optimize ROE and revenue. The business takes on activity that is accretive to risk-adjusted returns and revenue. Second, the business doesn't try to optimize for NIM or NII. That's because the NII and OOI breakdown in markets is often an outcome of accounting classification, with NIM and NII representing an incomplete view of this performance. And third, because of this, we tend to separate markets' activity when we present the group NIM.
Nevertheless, we do get a lot of questions on how this NII/OOI classification works, and I'll take you through this detail with reference to the slide published. Before we get into the classification of NII and OOI, I'd like to start with the impact of liquidity and Markets' activities on the headline Group NIM and what this really tells us. It's important, again, to highlight that this impact, whether it's positive or negative, is an outcome of certain factors and very rarely a driver or indicator of returns or revenue performance. The impact of Markets on headline Group NIM is a function of two things: a mixed impact and a rate impact.
So for example, referencing the charts on slide 22, liquidity and markets' activities had an adverse impact of 3 basis points on the group NIM delta in the second half of 2023, and all of this was a rate impact. In the first half of 2023, the impact was an adverse 8 basis points, of which 4 basis points was a mixed impact and 4 basis points a rate impact. Taking the mixed impact first, this is fundamentally driven by whether markets' interest-bearing assets grow at a faster or slower rate than the rest of the bank's interest-bearing assets. Because markets' interest-bearing assets are lower yielding, if they increase as a proportion of the group's interest-bearing assets, this will mathematically have an adverse mixed impact on the group NIM and vice versa. You'll be able to see this impact from the charts on the right-hand side of slide 22.
The first half of FY 2022 and the first half of FY 2023 were periods when markets' interest-bearing assets increased substantially as a proportion of group interest-bearing assets, and hence, there was an adverse mix impact on the group NIM. Of course, it's important to underscore that higher interest-bearing assets, which are driven by either higher markets' activity or a larger liquidity portfolio, bring higher revenue, which can be either NII or OOI.
And because these assets are capital-light, are generally higher ROE. As we've previously said on this topic, our assessment of these activities is not based on the mathematical mix impact they have on the group NIM. It's based on the impact they have on ROE and revenue overall. So that's the mix impact. Then you have the rate impact. The rate impact is driven by the increase or decrease in the ratio of markets' NII to markets' interest-bearing assets.
There can be a few drivers of this, but one common driver of this rate impact is our markets' franchise activity when interest rates are higher. Referencing slide 23, this is really due to the accounting asymmetry between NII and OOI, where the funding cost of positions is recognized as an interest expense in NII, but most of the revenue arising from this activity in the franchise is recognized in OOI, as Anshul outlined. This asymmetry is most pronounced in the commodities portfolio and when short-term interest rates are higher. This recurring asymmetry is not unique to ANZ, and some international banks with larger markets franchise or FICC businesses have also referenced this reporting outcome in the last 18 months. Looking at the charts on slide 23, you'll be able to see a few things about NII and OOI.
Firstly, you can see the correlation between NII and interest rates in the chart on the bottom left. NII, and specifically NII relating to commodities in the teal blue, is more negative when short-term interest rates are higher, representing the higher funding cost through NII. Secondly, you can see that when commodities' NII is more negative, commodities' OOI is more positive in the chart above, showing the revenue offset from the accounting asymmetry through OOI. This asymmetry has a rate impact on the group headline NIM, but as you can see, this rate impact isn't indicative of the overall returns or revenue performance. For example, in the bottom right chart, you can see that this ratio of markets' NII to interest-bearing assets was 33 basis points in 1H 2022, when total markets' income was AUD 812 million and revenue on RWA was 3.2%.
This declined to just one basis point in 2H 2023, when markets' income was higher at AUD 958 million and revenue on RWA was higher at 3.4%. So this ratio of markets' NII to interest-bearing assets drives the rate impact on group NIM, but you can clearly see it's an incomplete measure of revenue and returns. At ANZ, this asymmetry is most pronounced in our franchise business via our commodities activity. A large component of this is precious metals, specifically gold. As Anshul mentioned, the gold inventories and gold lending in this book have a funding cost that is booked as interest expense in NII but earn income through OOI driven by accounting requirements. And when short-term interest rates increase, as they have done over the last 18 months-24 months, this impact in our reporting becomes more pronounced.
It's also important to note there is no outright commodity price risk taken by this activity. So to summarize, there are good reasons why we separate the impact of markets when we show group NIM. These are outcomes rather than performance indicators. The impact of markets' activities can mathematically be shown as a mixed impact and a rate impact, but these impacts represent an incomplete view of risk-adjusted returns and revenue because an adverse mixed impact on group NIM from higher markets' interest-bearing assets is generally offset by higher ROE, and an adverse rate impact on group NIM that arises from the asymmetry between NII and OOI is generally offset by higher OOI. And so it follows that our markets' business is set up to optimize ROE and revenue, not NIM or NII outcomes. I hope that helps, and I'll pass back to you, Jill.
Thanks, Ramesh. And Kelly, I'll hand over to you to start the Q&A, please.
Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Jonathan Mott with Barrenjoey.
Just a question for Mark. Thanks for the presentation. It's been very informative. If I take a step back and think about the markets' business as a whole, we've been thinking about this business as an AUD 2 billion, roughly, revenue stream now for probably four years or maybe even longer than that. I think this is our first guidance that's provided. Did you talk about the growth in the franchise, how much you're focused on it, and that this is a growth engine? Should we be thinking that that AUD 2 billion is going to grow, or is this just an ongoing lower capital-intensive, higher ROE but still an AUD 2 billion revenue stream over the next couple of years?
Yeah. Thanks, Jonathan. And the answer to the question is yes, subject to. I do want to see it grow. We want to continue to grow it. I won't use the word conservatively, but in a way where I think I've said to you before, "I want to go up by the stairwell, not by the elevator," because you can go up by the elevator and come down by the elevator if you don't grow markets carefully. And therefore, when Anshul and I talk about the future of the business, the idea would be we would consistently grow revenue subject to us still meeting those return requirements. And therefore, we want to stay well above cost of capital.
We want to be growing the business in a way that supports the customer franchise, and we are actually growing our customer franchise again now that we have it in, I think, good shape compared to what it was in 2016. And we continue to look for diversification benefits, which Anshul touched on in markets, to ensure that through the cycles that you see in the economy, we have enough levers within the markets' business to grow the revenue but also, more importantly, continue to maintain the ROE. So the benefit of the business to the customers is very well established, particularly in the financial institution space. But for us to continue to grow the revenue, it has to meet those hurdles of high ROE above cost of capital and be driven around the customer franchise, if you like, rather than a trading book.
A lot of people associate markets as a proprietary trading business. We're not building out that way. So long answer, but ultimately, yeah, I do want to grow it but subject to the return requirements being there.
Can I just have a follow-up on that second part? Because sometimes there are straight-up opportunities. For example, you had a very strong first quarter in that December quarter that's just been completed, and you saw the U.S. 10-year rally over 100 basis points during that period. When you see a good opportunity like that, are you ever prepared to increase your traded VAR to some extent to make a bit of revenue, or are you going to sit back and just let the client activity drive this?
We tend to focus on the client activity first and foremost, but Anshul, you might want to talk about how we handle that. It's a good question.
Thanks, Jonathan. Exactly as Mark said, I think there's a high degree of correlation to the right kind of volatility in the market and the directionality there and to customer activity we see. So what we try and do is take and manage risk, helping clients or customers take advantage of those opportunities. Could be on the asset or the liability side and warehouse and manage risk directionally accordingly. So in terms of risk appetite, there's absolutely risk appetite to take advantage of opportunities. We just put a customer lens and that underlying of customer at the centre of our activity while we drive that risk.
You want to say the traded number increase when you see a or the balance sheet size. Pick that one as trading opportunities like this.
Yes, absolutely. So just to underline, we have the opportunity and the flexibility to weigh in on these opportunities and resize the amount of risk we've got on, both through the balance sheet side and I would say even in the franchise. Because as I said, there's a higher degree of correlation between external opportunities and client activity as well. So we tend to get a good degree of positive correlation in that outcome within the business as well.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Matt Dunger with B of A.
Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for my question. Anshul, you talked about building out the markets' capabilities and just looking at the relative ROEs that you reported in FY 2023 on transaction banking at around 36% versus the markets' division at 11%. What does it take to improve the ROE within the markets' division? And how are you going to earn a better return on this investment that you're making into this business?
Thanks, Matt. Look, that's a very good question. I'll start off by saying, as Mark has pointed out, in the division, there's a diversification of capabilities. Markets, by definition, is both an asset and liability-side business. The role which markets plays, and as I said in my earlier briefing as well, is the ability for the division and the group to be able to flex to both the asset and the liability side of the balance sheet, obviously built around the customer proposition. Now, that being said, I think that the heart of the strategy is really to deliver growth and revenue but by growing on the margin, the higher-returning businesses. For a very deliberate reason, foreign exchange is our largest business because that is the highest-returning business we have, and we will look to continue to scale that going forward.
In the other business lines, and I'll put a customer lens on why we have those capabilities, customers deal with ANZ because we bring a suite of capabilities to them. To give you an example, a corporate customer to partner ANZ and sign an ISDA with us would want both foreign exchange and rate hedging solutions. A financial institutions client or a DCM client really are looking for both rates and credit capabilities. Another example would be almost all of our commodity customers are multi-product customers. So what customers really look for from the market business within the institutional business is a suite of capabilities which are relevant to them and which is the lens we put on when we are looking at the returns on the portfolio.
Now, in the going forward, the emphasis is to, while we continue scaling our core high-returning business like foreign exchange, is to grow the fee-based lines within the RWA-heavy businesses like fixed income and continue to add into what's a very differentiated commodity proposition which is not really capital-consumptive on the margin to grow ROE.
That's good. Might I add there, Matt? The strategy that we're taking for the division, which is why I did that sort of spiel at the beginning, has been to get the right mix of our business and slant that, obviously, to the higher-returning parts of the business. As you call out, PCM is a really, really strong ROE business. But for us to have sustainability, we have to be building that mix also off the customer base that we've got. And therefore, if you take that same principle into the markets' business, so we're trying to do that in a divisional sense. If you take that into the markets' business, we certainly would want to grow the foreign exchange side of it, which is the highest-returning side of it.
Spot FX is a great one. I could choose one product that we do in markets and only one product. It'd be Spot FX. Unfortunately, we can't just position the business that way. It has to be a mix of FX, rates, Fixed Income, credit, Commodities. Getting that blend right does sometimes take some time, and it also will shift based on the customer sort of preferences. So we're doing a lot of work around trying to grow the higher accredited businesses while at the same time get better returns in the ones that are a little bit more capital-heavy. That is a bit of a journey, but I think we've done a good job in the last few years. I'd hope that gets better going forward as well.
Thank you very much.
Your next question comes from Andrew Lyons with Goldman Sachs.
Thanks and good morning. Just a further question on the back of John's initial question earlier. Just Mark, you mentioned the opportunity for greater levels of diversification of revenue in the markets' business, which Anshul also mentioned would be franchise-focused. Can you perhaps just talk in a bit more detail about where they'll come from and just, I guess, how you'll manage the risk of introducing the business to new revenue lines?
Yeah. I might start then, Anshul. If I look at it from the choice of customer is really important in that, Andrew. So while we've been focusing on the higher-accredited businesses in the division, in particular, Jill, and PCM, that's the first step. The second step is actually to focus on the customers that can deliver that sort of product next to you. And so you'll note in the last five or six years, particularly, we've gone really hard at areas like the financial institution space, particularly with global funds, domestic funds, but also banks because they tend to be using those higher ROE products. It's the same across the division in PCM, but it's also actually relevant to the markets' business specifically. On top of that, we've also looked for customers that operate in multiple geographies and will deal with us in multiple geographies.
Our most profitable customers tend to be those that deal with us in either Australia or New Zealand. Sort of that's our door opener, if you like. But then in one, two, three, four , and in some instances, we've got customers dealing with us in 13, 14 countries in the international network. They become very profitable because there is a multiplier effect for us both in the type of business that we see with that mix but also in the local markets. Anshul touched on our local markets capability, which is actually quite accredited for us and is differentiated for us. So it's the choice of customer that matches the network but also then the mix of business that we're after. So did you want to add to that , specifically around markets, Anshul?
Sure, Mark. So thanks, Andrew. Maybe just to add to what Mark said and make it specific, I think what we try to do is really acquire scale in what is a differentiated proposition. And if I were to underline that, as I briefly mentioned in the initial update, we have what I call really strong differentiated access to liquidity proposition in foreign exchange, particularly, both in Australia and New Zealand as well as in Asia through our local markets business, a really strong cross-border proposition in our fixed income business, and what I would call a very differentiated proposition again in the commodities business. Now, you marry that to a core set of customers who deal with ANZ consistently and, as Mark said, tend to deal with us at multiple touchpoints in multiple countries would be the focus of the business.
To make it specific in terms of priorities, we only have our local market business, which is almost an annuity business for us now, very stable through the cycle, a completely differentiated proposition. We intend to do more of that, but one focus is going to be a lot more digital delivery in foreign exchange, for example, and our internal reach into commercial and retail in Australia and New Zealand. The second piece would be adding on the more fee-based income lines in fixed income where the cross-border proposition is unique. That includes, besides repo, also the securitization business in Australia. The third piece is really the commodities proposition. I think we have a big role to play in the carbon space and the energy space with a focus on Australia and Asia.
To supplement all of that is really the more solutions-oriented capability we're adding on to our mix in Australia, in foreign exchange particularly, and in the rate space in Asia. I hope that gives you a bit of a flavor of what we're doing.
Yeah. And the only other point that I suppose to add there is part of the growth proposition is also to ensure that we do want to selectively grow our customer base. But I'd underline selective. It has to meet the criteria that we've sort of outlined before that has a link to Australia and New Zealand but also that multiple geographic piece and in the higher-returning sectors. That tends to be where we're focusing. And we have started to pivot to that new customer selection, which will help the sustainability and the growth in revenue and return, more importantly, in markets. So we're trying to build that business to remove that sort of annual variability that you've been seeing, which upsets everybody. You can't take all of that out because sometimes some years are more volatile than others in point of 2020.
Ultimately, that's the idea that we're outside major events. That's what we're trying to get to.
Thanks for that detail. And Mark, just while I've got the microphone, I might as well try for one more. Your AGM commentary highlighted conditions in markets that started pretty well in 1Q. Any comments on the extent to which that's continued into the second quarter?
Yeah. Look, I think generally, the business has been in pretty good shape. I mean, as we started, as I would have expected, it's continued relatively well across all the business lines. I'm pretty happy. I mean, I'm never completely happy by the way, but it's gone as we would have expected. And this business tends to have, and we actually focus on having a strong first half because this markets business tends to be if you get away well, you continue to have a reasonable year. I'd hope that continues. You saw that last year. And I would imagine that we'll finish the half okay, and then the second half, we're going to try and take out some of the volatility you saw last year. Again, that'll depend a little bit on market conditions.
Thanks so much.
Your next question comes from Brian Johnson with MST Financial.
Good morning, everyone. Just a few questions, if I may. Can I just come back to a subtle thing, the difference between the AGM commentary and what we saw at the first quarter? So at the AGM on the December 21st, the narrative was that. Can you hear me, Mark?
Yep. Loud and clear.
Okay. Okay. So the narrative was at the AGM on the December 21st that the revenues were in line with the second half 2023, which was AUD 5.1 billion, and that the markets' revenues were in line with the first half 2023, which was AUD 575 million. Nine days later for the quarter, we basically saw the revenue guidance is now basically in line with where it was at the first half 2023. That implies an uplift of revenue of something like AUD 80 million. I'd just like to understand, was the commentary at the AGM incorrect? Or where did the AUD 80 million of revenue did it come through in your business, Mark, or did it come through in the non-markets business, the nine days?
So it wasn't that the AGM or the 1Q were either of them were incorrect, BJ. It was the AGM, as you've said, was a half-on-half comment. We hadn't closed off the half, obviously. You would still remember, even though we're into December, you're still seeing numbers coming through. In the first quarter, we've given you a PCP comparison because we thought that was more relevant given the trends that we'd seen in the markets' business. So effectively, the markets' trends, as Mark's just explained, had continued to be pretty good. And that's why we thought a comparison to the first half or PCP, given the nature of that business does tend to be to have a stronger first half than second half, we thought a PCP comparison was going to be more useful to you.
Yeah. Sorry, Jill. It is useful, but as I say, it's materially different over a period of nine days. I'm just trying to get my head around, was it in the markets' business or in the non-markets' business that we saw the revenue uplift between the AGM commentary and what we saw at the first quarter?
Well, in the first quarter disclosures, we've given you a split, effectively, of a comment about revenue more broadly and markets specifically. So that would give you that answer, BJ.
It implies that it wasn't in the markets' business sense.
That would be the math.
Right. And is that correct, Mark? Is that correct? Because it's kind of different to what you said today.
Well, no. What I said today is that we've started well, and it was, I mean, that came through in the quarter announcements that we made, the first quarter announcements that we made. I think there's an issue between the group numbers and the markets numbers here.
But we split them. Yeah. And we split the markets numbers.
And it's overtime. But if I look at where we were, the start that we had last year, which is why we went PCP, to the start we had this year, I'm not going to give you the exact numbers, obviously, but the trends were pretty solid, to be frank.
That's why if you read the first bullet point on slide two of the quarterlies, that's why we say group revenue was in line with the first half quarterly average with non-markets revenue broadly in line. Then we give you a comment after that that says the markets business has had a good start to the year with revenues a little better than the first half. The math of that's pretty obvious, I would have thought.
Okay. So it's up in the markets business then. Okay. Mark, the second one is that listening to you today, you've built your proprietary pricing system. And I think you really have to take a big pat on the back. It's fantastic that you've actually got single systems. I was just wondering how we reconcile this kind of increased counterparty risk that you sometimes see unintentionally in the markets business. So for example, it wasn't that long ago that we had a one-off credit loss, basically from a Singapore trading counterparty in the oil business. We'd seen one in copper years ago. Does this show up in the markets business or basically in the corporate finance business? And how do you run it?
Yeah. And that was actually in the Transaction Banking business. So Transaction Banking is payments cash management, which we're growing, and the other element of that is the trade finance book. That was a fraud that occurred in the trade finance book, so it wasn't associated with markets.
Yeah. And how do you, but Mark, when you take a position and you've got in the markets business, you've got this counterparty risk, do you somehow hedge that away, or how should we be thinking about that?
Yep. Yep. Anshul can give you some insights to that. Anshul, go on.
Hi, Brian. Look, just to sort of give you a quick flavor, we don't have any lending losses in markets. Any customer losses in the context of markets would really be on default on derivatives, okay? As such, so that you have the exact background, there have been very tiny, very few cases, probably less than a handful, where we had to close out. How we manage this, I think there's a regulatory framework in place where we have, by definition, the regulator, the need to have an XVA or what we call a CVA desk. We manage all the counterparties coming through derivatives through CVA provisions and then associated CVA hedging along with that. Now, that gets reported under our XVA disclosures in our results specifically.
So if you look at that trend, I think it's been a pretty consistent sort of story to what I just said, that markets does not really have any lending or really counterparty credit risk losses of any scale aside.
Part of their focus is also covered through not all of it, but part of it's covered through CSAs, right? So if you wanted to go in deeper on that, BJ, we can actually do that. It gets quite complicated when you get down to the credit counterparty risk, if you like, that we have in the book and how that is managed and hedged. We do do some of that depending on whether we can get matches to parts of that portfolio in the external market to hedge it. But it is quite a detailed area, but they do watch that quite closely. But as Anshul said, there's very little derivative losses that you see or defaults that occur in the book.
Sometimes we associate it if there is a major corporate that's gone down and we've had FX deals or derivative deals with them that we have to net out, and we're in a loss position on those. In a lot of instances, we're actually in a gain position on them. It depends on the circumstances.
Fantastic. And Mark, just a final one, if I may. I understand how you're managing it for a total return between the non-interest revenue and the net interest income. I suppose the sad thing is the market tends to focus just on the quality as being the net interest income and the operating income. But could I just have a go to work out whether I've got this correct? Rates rise. We basically see a funding drag through the net interest income, which is offset by a gain in the non-interest revenues. But the other hunk of the markets business is that when we have a look at where you manage, for example, the replicating portfolio tracker, we can see bond rates fall. The gain goes basically the mark-to-market gain, whatever you want to call it, that goes through the net interest income line or the non-interest revenue line.
We're just working out who's best to answer this one for you. What do you mean? Yeah. So that goes through NII.
So that goes through NII. So just to clarify this because it's the issue, rates go up at the short end, bad for NIM. Bonds go up, bad for NIM. Is that right? That's the replicating portfolio, or?
Well, one's short-term rates and one's term structure rates, right?
Yeah.
Maybe I can take a sorry, Brian. I was going to just take a shot at it. So specifically to the bullion business is where you've got two lines, where you've got the cost of financing that sitting in your NIM while the income from it, which more than covers our NIM and some, comes through our NII, okay?
OOI.
Yeah. OOI. Sorry. The bond business is the cost of carrying that in NIM is a completely different issue. There is no kind of volatility you are seeing where you've got two offsetting lines increasing or decreasing the way you are seeing that in the bullion business. Does that?
Well, look, that's just a little bit slow, as we both know. But if I have a look at slide 12, we can see maintained capability in lower interest rate environment, which I think is telling me as long bond rates go down, we get positive gains come through, and it probably comes through the NIM. But then if I have a look at the other slide on where the replicating portfolio is managed, it's managed in this business where we know higher bond rates are good for it. And I'm just really struggling to work out the dynamics.
Yeah. So I think the other piece that's missing here is that when we manage the liquidity portfolio, we're effectively hedging interest rate risk, right, the delta hedging the interest rate risk. So there is no P&L impact from a parallel change in interest rate that will come through the liquidity portfolio.
The capital requirement moves around quite a bit because of the embedded gain or loss, correct?
Yeah. And we manage interest rate risk in the banking book for that as well.
Okay. So the ROE, okay, moves around. Okay. Thank you very much, gents. Really appreciate it.
Thank you. Thanks, Brian.
Your next question comes from Richard Wiles with Morgan Stanley.
Good morning. I'd just like to ask a question about the impact of rate movements on the entire institutional revenue book. Now, I'm not interested in whether it goes through other income or whether it goes through net interest income. But how does the lower rate environment impact institutional revenue? What's the sensitivity? And is the revenue headwind from rates larger in the institutional bank than it is in the retail and business banking divisions of ANZ?
Yeah. So there's a number of parts to that. Look, clearly, you've seen in the institutional business a benefit that has come through from rising rates, particularly in the PCM business. I won't give you a sensitivity on that. Obviously, we haven't given that before, so I won't give that today. But you've got to kind of break that PCM portfolio into a number of components. You've got a large proportion of that book is a term deposit book. So changes in interest rates, provide safety, don't impact margins there. You've then got a proportion of that book that is linked to short-term interest rates. So essentially, customers are contractually linked to short-term interest rates. So the delta or the VaR impact is not as big. And then you've got a portfolio where the rates are not linked to cash rates, and therefore, you do have some impact there.
So there is a proportion of that book that is impacted by interest rates. But the other thing to note is that there are also management actions undertaken all the time in that portfolio, including growing the size of the book to mitigate against interest rate impact, customer pricing to mitigate against interest rate impact. And obviously, a lot of customers in the PCM book, what they really value is not necessarily just the interest rate they're getting on those deposits, but also the payments functionality that those platforms are delivering. So there's a rate sensitivity, absolutely. But in addition to that, there's also a number of management actions that are taken to manage interest rate sensitivity in that book. Yeah.
Just to add to that, Richard, the component parts of that deposit base mean that you can't just look at this as a linear item one way or the other because we will take management actions. Some are more sensitive than others and will look to. I think I was just talking to Jill about this. I think we should look to provide a little bit more detail for everybody on that and the breakdown of those deposits at first half 2024, right?
Yeah. No, we appreciate the curiosity whilst in, and we'll look to give you a bit more help on that at the half.
I think it's that we should do that in any case because as we continue to I want to continue to grow that business, so it's best that everyone understands those component parts of the deposit book. It's not just going to be a linear one way or the other. We can actually manage it, which is what we're sort of building muscle on as well.
Could I just try to phrase the question a little bit differently? The institutional margins went up more, or the institutional revenue benefited more from rising rates earlier in this rate cycle. Was that because New Zealand rates and U.S. rates in particular went up earlier than Aussie rates, or is it because institutional was more leveraged to rates than the rest of the?
That would be a bit of both, but Ramesh, do you want to say something?
Yeah. Richard, you're right. It is more, it's a bit of both, but more the former. So in particular, within our deposit portfolio, there is a little bit more rate sensitivity to U.S. dollars than to Aussie or Kiwi.
So when rates go down, do you think the performance of the institutional revenue versus the rest of the division will be influenced more by the timing and magnitude of rate moves in Australia versus the U.S., or is institutional just more leveraged, the movements in rates generally?
No, I wouldn't describe it as leverage. I think, as you said, there's a little bit more sensitivity to U.S. dollars or U.S. dollar rates. And obviously, again, it all depends on volumes as well.
Mix of the deposits.
Mix of the deposits as to how that margin moves overall.
Okay. Thank you.
Your next question comes from Victor German with Macquarie.
Thank you. My question was sort of along similar lines to Richard, and it's slightly different, though. So Mark, I think in your opening comments, you talked about the changes in institutional bank that we've obviously observed over the last couple of years or five years or so that you've made. And ultimately, it's a stronger business, which we can see. And one of those benefits obviously came from improved risk profile and lower impairment charges. But looking at your pre-provision line and looking at return on risk-weighted assets at a pre-provision level, the real step up in returns, as Richard was alluding earlier, came through in 2023 when rates went up. So if I look at sort of five years prior to that, the average return on risk-weighted assets was about 1.5%.
It was sort of moving up and down depending on how strong market income was, but it hasn't moved up meaningfully. Then we've seen a step up in 2023. As we're looking sort of hours into the medium term, kind of what are your observations in terms of return profile for the business going forward? Do you think that it's more around opportunities managing sort of risk-weighted assets while maintaining or growing pre-provision earnings at a slower rate, or do you expect pre-provision profits to continue to grow, or is it ongoing benefits through the impairments line that you think will deliver better long-term returns?
Yeah. Look, yeah, Victor's a bit there too. Look, most people feel, and we get this question a little bit, that just because rates went up, that's why we had such an improved performance. Well, there's no doubt that helped. But we've been positioning for this for quite some time. And while the rates went up, there was a few other things that occurred. We obviously had some risk-weighted asset benefit through the Basel IV changes, which affected and helped our return on equity. That's not going back regardless of what goes on. That is now set in well unless the regulators want to change it one more time. But we don't see that benefit going away.
We're significantly more capital-efficient not only by the mix of business that we have in place, the quality of the customer base, which is much higher rated than 2016, but also by the Basel IV benefits that we got in a capital sense. So that will stay with us going forward. The second thing I'd say is that we've improved the mix of the business, as we've discussed, more into PCM, more into markets, and at a higher return business, which also had some capital impacts previously, which we got a little bit back on, and then less into that heavy loan book.
On top of that, though, I'd have to say that even if we just looked at the loans that we're writing today and the discipline that we have on the pricing of those, these would be where we were in 2016. We require, unless there's a very good argument around actual real cross-sell, that those loans get written at or above cost of capital. That wasn't the case in the past. Now, a lot of that has occurred during that last 5-year period. So it's a combination of, I would argue very and that is the case, a combination of factors, Victor, that got us the performance that we've had, which is why I have a higher degree of confidence that we can maintain sustainable returns above cost of capital compared to where we were back in 2016.
To your point around the provisions, the issue there for us is that we, and I've said this before, which obviously affects the returns as well. I've said this before. When there was a bad loan, we usually used to have the biggest check, and we're at the front of the line, right? And we're very conscious of that and what we're trying to do. We don't want to say we won't take losses going forward, but look, by dealing with the right level of customers, with the right mix of business, you mitigate a lot of that. And then you apply the fact that we're pricing for risk better than we've ever done, and we're getting that better mix of business. And you combine all that. Certainly, rates going up helped, but it was only one factor of a number of them.
I think the other thing is that the sheer level of technology investment you've made in that business over the past few years and what that allows you to do, including the harmonization of the credit decisioning. It's a quantum leap, Victor, on where that business was a decade ago.
Yeah. Yeah. And in addition to that too, I think what we've tried to do, the simplification of the tech stack is really important because it allows us now to have further opportunities to automate and have much better data. And everyone talks about data, and you think, "Well, how are you actually going to make any money out of it?" The first thing is to actually get it as clean data and actually make it in a position where your customers are getting a better experience through the systems, and we have visibility of their activity. That's what we're concentrating on next. And so I get your point. I do tend to, I don't want to get grumpy, but I do get grumpy a little bit about the fact that people just think it's a linear association with rates up and down. We're trying to get away from that.
Certainly, part of it, and we have to manage that, but it's not all due to the fact that interest rates went up.
No, isn't it? And apologies if it came across the way. I mean, I think the point around the risk weighted assets is also a good one. I mean, I mean, based on my numbers, you've got about 25-30 basis point benefits from that. But that was an industry benefit. And I'd be interested in your thoughts whether you see a risk of that being competed away given that everyone effectively had that step up, and therefore, they could potentially compete more aggressively for lending. It doesn't sound like that's the case that you see currently, that people are kind of pricing for new risk weighted assets.
Yeah. You broke up a little bit there, but I think the Basel IV benefits were only really in Australia, right? And so yeah, you're right. Everybody got the benefit of that. But ultimately, I think the additional benefit is that if you look at the risk-weighted assets, that's improved significantly in our book more than others, in my view, because of the reweighting of the business to that higher-rated customers, particularly in the FI space. And why are we being successful there? Well, Anshul's business is geared very much into servicing those customers, not only in FX but in credit, in local markets, in local market rates business, which is very appealing to a lot of the global funds wanting to get exposure into Asia. And in addition to that, the payments and cash management services like clearing and others that we add.
It's a combination of all of those things that puts us in a better position. Certainly, on the risk-weighted asset side, we're targeting customers that sort of sit that profile I just described to you, which means we get the risk-weighted asset benefit, but we think we get the highest returning product benefit as well.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Andrew Trigg with JP Morgan.
Thank you. Good morning. Just a couple of quick follow-ups. First one, just zoning in on rate leverage again. I think you said at the platform's briefing last year that there was about $103 billion of operational deposits. Is that ultimately the number that really is the rate-insensitive component of deposits within the institutional bank market?
No. It's Ramesh here. So no, not all of that is rate-insensitive. So that's essentially the total book of the at-call deposits, you might call them. But a large proportion of that, the customer rates are contractually linked to cash rates. So not all of that. And certainly, a large part of that is not rate-insensitive. Yeah. So we are able to, and part of that, negotiate some of the rates, if you like, which means on the way up and also on the way down.
Mark, could you give us a sense of the split in that space? Because you've given that number before.
Giving to it as part of.
Yeah. I don't think we've given it explicitly before like that. So let's consider what we can provide.
Look, I think we understand. We're getting the message that you'd like a bit more detail on that, but obviously, analysis. So we'll talk to Jill and see what we can do to come up with something that gives you pretty sensitive for us to do that now. I think we'd do that once we've got the data out.
Yeah. Actually, we'll.
Yeah.
But I get your point on it, Andrew.
Yeah. We get it, Trigg yeah, and we'll look to give you a bit more analysis on that at the half when we can give you more context. We can't give you that today.
Yeah. Sure. Thanks, Jill. Then just quickly, a follow-up again on ROE for the markets business, which was in the FY 2023 presentation. That 11% was broadly similar to corporate finance, whereas generally, the pitch has been that corporate finance lending is pretty low and tight margins, low ROE, and that cross-sell juices up that return. Can I understand then why that the market I would have presumed that the markets franchise is earning a better ROE than the lending business? I know cross-sell involves transaction banking and payments as well as markets, but why isn't there a bigger difference between the two ROEs of those divisions?
Yeah. I think we're in a bit of a journey here with markets. While we've been reshaping the division, we've also been reshaping markets around that customer mix that I talked about, but also specifically to, Andrew, the product mix. And getting that right takes a little bit of time. So we do want if you break down like we've done within the division, what do I want? I want I'd actually like 45% of my business coming from PCM, right? Not transaction banking, PCM, because it is and will always be the highest-returning on equity business. And then I would go in order of markets, corporate financial loans, let's call it, and trade. Trade actually is a lower-returning sort of ROE business, and it moves around quite a bit.
It's important because it actually does feed other things into markets, for example, EFX deals that come off the back of it. And it's sort of a product, obviously, that matches the geographic footprint that we have. By the way, we're working on that because we're looking at trade in a different light. So we want to do more of the supply chain trade and do that through shared risk portals because we get greater risk-sharing there, and it's actually more valuable for us. On the loan book, I've talked to that where we're pricing the loans pretty much at cost of capital or above and using that as a ticket to the dance to a degree. But I want that ticket to the dance to be as small as possible. So again, we'll continue to provide it, but we'll do it in a selective perspective.
With regards to markets, I still think we're on a journey here. I mean, Anshul's sitting across the desk looking uncomfortable because he asked us, "What I want here is I want that ROE higher." And because I'm not going to get all of the transaction business without actually the transactional banking business without providing other product services. And so you have to look at getting the mix right. And then within the mix of those products, the right mix within the products, which is why Anshul's focused very heavily on the FX side. And the higher-returning businesses, local markets, can actually be very, very profitable for us. But that, again, just takes a bit of time. So that's why I talk about markets being up by the stairwell. We want to build it slowly, conservatively, and on the basis of revenue growth, but more importantly, ROE growth.
It has to have both. And I think it's improved over the last few years, but it's still got a way to go from my perspective. Does that help all, Andrew?
Thanks, Mark. Yep.
Thanks, Christine. Last one. Thanks, Kelly.
Your last question is from Ed Henning with CLSA.
Thank you for taking my question. Look, just hopefully, very quickly, on slide 14 and just kind of following up on the previous couple of questions, you talk about the markets business growing, going up the stairwell and growing that AUD 2 billion. But are you grabbing market share here, or is it just the market growing? And can you just touch around the competition? Do you think you can still go up that stairwell if competition continues to increase in this space?
Pretty good question. I think at the heart of what this presentation was about as well, I think we are looking to focus not just on growing revenue but growing the returns and revenue and doing it methodically, which is why we are focused on where we have a differentiated proposition and looking to scale that specifically in areas where we have higher margins and higher returns and also customers who are going to be with us sustainably through the cycle. I think so if you look at the capability mix which we have in there, there are parts in which we are leveraging our strengths, which are not necessarily linked to just the growth in the market but our capability mix allowing us to take a larger share in the market.
That ranges from, as I mentioned, the differentiated pools of liquidity assets we have in foreign exchange, both in Australia, New Zealand, as well as in Asia, in scaling that, which is a higher-returning business, looking at our commodity proposition in a very differentiated way, leveraging our network, which is not necessarily something other banks can do, and then thirdly, growing the higher-margin businesses within the fixed income business. If you put that together, it's not necessarily dependent on just market growth, but I think just getting to the scale we think we can within the markets business.
Yeah. And I think Anshul touched earlier too on the fact that we've invested in and built our own capability and pricing, which means we're not reliant on other suppliers with this who tend to be taking a bit of a share of that profit pool, if you like, through the way that they have to execute and the other competitors may have to execute. So there's an element of that. And it's pretty competitive, as you'd expect, in Australia, right? So we do see some growth options, Ed, I think, in Australia, and we'll continue to try to compete to get a growing pool. So there's a number of factors: technology, quality of people, pricing capabilities, etc., etc. But we've got an opportunity there. But internationally, I think with the Asian presence that we have in the local markets business, domestic competitors don't have that.
But also, the internationals have some of it, and they're very good competitors. But we think we can because we're focused on a key set of customers, we think we can probably outgrow a little bit there. And that has been the case, but we'll see if we can do more. Final thing too is that we've not been good domestically at selling into our commercial banking, right, in markets. In fact, I get frustrated by this because when I ran commercial, I tried to change it, and I failed miserably. But the and this is on our schedule now, particularly around some of the tech spend that we've had. We want to take that deeper into our commercial customer base. So we're working with Clare Morgan and her team about how we do that and create a better proposition.
So I think we can go deeper into our own market. And then if we get the right proposition, perhaps we can also help grow her market share there, which would we have a benefit on. But we've been pretty lousy in that space, Ed. And it's one of the things I want fixed.
Okay. Thank you.
That does conclude our question-and-answer session. I'll now hand back to Jill Campbell for closing remarks.
Thanks, Kelly, and thanks, everyone. We were conscious that there would be a lot of questions, and there were. Thanks for those. So we've run a little bit over. I am conscious, though, that some of you might have had additional questions. So if you ring either Cameron, myself, or Pavita this afternoon, and if you need help, we can connect you with Ramesh and Stuart and their team. Thank you so much for joining us.
That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.