Good morning, and thank you for joining the Barclays results call for the third quarter of 2026. In this call and in our full year results discussion in February 2027, we will supplement our usual discussion with two features.

First, we will explain the benefits of the investments which we have made to date and which are delivering the results that we expected. Second, we will provide greater insight into the components of our cost profile and trajectory.

This will illustrate the operational efficiency which we are driving for, particularly from technology, and it will show our future ambitions. I'll commence with a brief review of results, followed by a detailed discussion from Anna, and then return to these two features.

I'm pleased with our year-to-date performance, and I'm confident in achieving our primary financial targets. Our income in the third quarter was £7.4 billion, up 3% year-on-year, and we reduced the cost-income ratio to 62% for the quarter and 57% year-to-date.

We grew profit before tax in the quarter by 12% to £2.3 billion, and we delivered an RoTE of 11.7% in the quarter and 13.8% year-to-date. Given our returns and our robust CET1 ratio of 14.2%, we are announcing a £500 million share buyback.

This brings year-to-date distributions to £2.8 billion, up 47% from the same period last year. Our earnings per share is up 18% year-on-year for the third quarter and on track for a third consecutive year of 20% growth in EPS.

We remain very confident in achieving the group RoTE target of greater than 12% this year, having achieved 12.4% in the last 12 months. Let me share four main reflections on this quarter.

First, the investment that we have made in and the repositioning of our UK retail and corporate franchises is driving above-market growth. All three businesses had an RoTE of greater than 20% in the third quarter.

Second, I'm pleased to see the continued results of our investment in the equities franchise in the investment bank. Their strong revenues this quarter have helped balance the somewhat disappointing results from fixed income intermediation.

Third, increased regulatory clarity is providing us with greater capital flexibility, and we will update on our expected CET1 operating level at the full year results. Finally, as I will discuss later, multi-year investments in our businesses are delivering consistent returns and growth.

This is the alpha we are creating. Including these investments, we are going to provide you with a clear path for absolute cost and efficiency savings in 2027.

I will return to this at the end. First, however, Anna will take you through the financials in detail.

Over to you, Anna.

Thank you, Venkat, and good morning, everyone. With one quarter left in the original three-year plan, we are confident in delivering all group targets.

As I take you through our results, I will focus more than usual on costs. Starting, though, with income.

Group income grew 3% year-on-year in Q3, on track for the circa £31.5 billion target in '26. This implies four-year growth of circa 8% versus the more than 5% CAGR target to '28.

We are building more consistent returns by growing stable income streams. These now cover 125% of group costs versus around 100% before '24, having grown for six consecutive years.

This is underpinned by group NII, which has been around 50% of total income consistently since 2023. We are confident in delivering the '26 group NII target with 7% year-on-year growth in Q3.

We expect NII growth to continue, underpinned by two levers. First, the quality of deposits, particularly in the UK.

These support structural hedge income growth until at least 2030, as I'll discuss later. Second, ongoing lending momentum, starting with UK deposits.

Around 80% of group deposits come from UK clients, including in private bank and wealth management and the international corporate bank. We bring these together for the first time on the left, with total deposits up 3% year-on-year.

Barclays UK retail deposits also grew 3%, as shown on the top right. Current account customers hold around 90% of Barclays-branded UK retail deposits, with current account balances stable since '24, as we show on slide 37 in the appendix.

Given our strong funding positions, we take a relationship-led approach to savings, with Premier accounting for 90% of Barclays-brand ISA growth year-to-date. Retail deposits are only one part of the story.

The bottom right now shows the corresponding split of UK corporate deposits. We are the UK's largest corporate bank, with £220 billion of deposits across three divisions: Barclays UK, UK corporate bank, and ICB in the investment bank.

These have grown 4% year-on-year. Current accounts are stable and support deep relationships, with around 80% of UK corporate bank clients banking with us for more than 5 years.

The breadth and quality underpin the structural hedge shown on the next slide. The structural hedge provides stable income and predictable growth for all divisions.

Average swap rates of 4.2% year-to-date exceed the 3.5% planning assumption, supporting additional NII in future years. Given prevailing and expected swap rates, hedge income is likely to grow until at least 2030, as you can see from the updated maturing yield disclosure on the left.

Whilst higher rates undoubtedly help structural hedge income, we are also diversifying NII by growing lending. Total UK lending grew by 7%, consistent with a more than 5% target from '25 to '28.

With one quarter to go, we have deployed £28 billion of UK business growth RWAs towards the circa £30 billion target for the three years to '26. Mortgages grew by 7% year-on-year, with £11 billion of gross lending in the quarter.

Corporate and business banking lending grew 13% year-on-year, excluding the run-off portfolios. Above-market growth in UK corporate bank reflects investments since '23, helping to attract 1,500 new clients, with around 40% borrowing from us.

More on this from Venkat later. In summary, our progress in both deposits and lending is driven and sustained by investment in the business in both service and capabilities.

Moving on to costs. When we think about costs, we distinguish running the bank from investing in the future.

In running the bank, we aim to drive as much operational leverage as possible by delivering gross efficiencies to offset costs from business growth, inflation, and BAU investments. We distinguish this from strategic investment to increase returns.

Run-the-bank costs have increased by £0.3 billion, of which £0.2 billion relates to the acquisition of Best Egg and GoHenry. Put differently, gross efficiencies have meaningfully offset additional costs from business growth, inflation, and BAU investments.

This is despite £0.3 billion of additional performance costs given 8% year-to-date income growth in the investment bank versus the low single-digit target. We also increased investment by £0.2 billion year-on-year to harmonize systems and processes and grow fee businesses.

This results in exit rate costs of circa £18 billion for '26. As outlined last quarter, we are also deliberately spending an additional £0.3 billion in H2 to structurally reduce costs, supported by technology deployment.

Inclusive of this, the Q1 motor finance provision, and the change to material risk takers' compensation mix, we expect circa £18.5 billion of costs in '26. This is consistent with a high-50s cost-income ratio target.

We said in February that costs would grow modestly from '25 to '28 and the group would deliver positive operating jaws each year. These expectations are fully intact based on statutory total costs.

What drives this? For the group, we expect run-the-bank costs to be flat or lower in 2027 versus '26, reflecting higher anticipated gross efficiencies.

This creates capacity for £0.4 billion of planned additional investment within our modest cost growth guidance. In absolute terms, we expect statutory costs to fall to circa £18.4 billion in 2027.

Cost-income ratio remains our north star, we would expect to flex business growth costs to the extent that income is higher or lower than expectations. As a result, we are confident in making meaningful progress next year towards the low-50s cost-income ratio target in 2028 from high-50s ratio this year.

Our confidence in delivering these commitments is underpinned by the generation of cost efficiencies. In the past 2 years, we have delivered around £0.7 billion of gross efficiency savings annually, facilitated by £0.3 billion of SCAs in the prior year, driving positive operating jaws each year.

This was our planning assumption for '26 to '28. Having increased this for '26 alone, we expect more than £1.1 billion of gross efficiency savings in 2027.

These actions involve an expected reduction of circa 5,000 full-time employees. Around 60% of the group actions relate to support functions, including fewer developers as AI makes our people more productive.

Nowhere in the bank is this more relevant than in Barclays UK, where we have taken more structural cost actions than planned in '26. Whilst this acceleration means I no longer expect Barclays UK costs to fall in '26 versus '25, we are more confident in reducing 2027 and 2028 below the '25 level.

This is enabled by improved customer-facing technology, which has reduced call centre volumes by 10% in the past year, while technology improvements within call centres have increased colleague productivity. Changes to the branch staffing model have also reduced employees per branch by around 10% in the past year, with colleagues focusing on higher-value support.

Following the successful integration of Tesco Bank, circa £0.2 billion of cost synergies are flowing through, with the majority split broadly evenly between '27 and '28. In '27, we expect a high-40s cost-to-income ratio before falling to mid-40s in '28.

Turning to impairment. Consumer and corporate balance sheets remain robust, and borrowers are behaving rationally, with a year-to-date loan loss rate of 55 basis points.

The Barclays UK loan loss rate of 20 basis points benefited from a Tesco Bank debt sale and should normalize towards circa 30 basis points in Q4, whilst in US Consumer Bank, 90-day delinquencies fell further, as shown on appendix slide 45. We expect a seasonally higher reserve build and loan loss rate in Q4 given card spending.

Given this and a 552 basis point year-to-date loan loss rate, we still expect circa 550 basis points for the full year. Turning to Barclays UK.

RoTE was 21.2% in Q3, and income grew by 4%. Costs increased 6%, driven entirely by £110 million of SCAs, reflecting the accelerated actions I discussed earlier.

NII increased 6% year-on-year and 4% versus Q2 to £2.1 billion. Structural hedge momentum was complemented by positive product margin effects as guided at Q2.

This reflected dissipating mortgage margin headwinds, card seasonality, and day count. We still expect full-year NII around the middle of the £8.1 to £8.3 billion range, as guided last quarter.

An increase in the structural hedge in early October will lead to a negative Q4 product margin movement, offset by higher hedge income with no material net effect. Moving to UK Corporate Bank.

Q3 RoTE was 23.5% and 21.6% year-to-date. Income and costs both increased 10%.

We grew NII by 14%, driven by structural hedge income and volume growth. As outlined earlier, lending grew by 14% and deposits by 1%, supported by improved propositions.

The loan-to-deposit ratio was 38%, up 4 percentage points year-on-year. Moving to Private Bank and Wealth Management.

Q3 RoTE was 23.8% and 25.4% year-to-date. Client assets and liabilities grew 6% year-on-year, and AUM 10%.

This included £2.5 billion of net new AUM year-to-date, including £0.6 billion in Q3. The Private Bank has driven most of the client asset and liability growth in the past 3 years.

Part of the investment I outlined earlier will drive additional scale in UK Wealth, including through adviser recruitment and recently launched marketing. These investments increased costs 7% quarter-on-quarter, and we expect a similar increase into Q4.

Moving to the Investment Bank. Q3 RoTE was 9.5% and 13.5% year-to-date.

Income was broadly flat year-on-year, with higher RWAs reducing income to average RWAs by 20 basis points to 6.1%. With the investment banking loan book review now largely complete, we deployed additional RWAs to support deal activity, including in the UK.

This will generate income in future quarters. Costs increased £72 million, driven entirely by £112 million of SCAs and changes to material risk takers' compensation mix.

We expect Q4 MRT costs to be similar to the Q3 level of £55 million. Including all H2 costs, we remain focused on delivering a circa 12% RoTE and positive operating jaws in '26, having delivered 2% positive jaws year-to-date.

In US dollar terms, Markets income increased 4% year-on-year. Benefiting from past investments, equities increased 47% and accounted for half of Q3 Markets income.

Equity derivatives were particularly strong, and we grew Prime, supporting 8% year-on-year financing growth. This offset weaker FICC intermediation, with lower client activity in rates and credit in the second half of the quarter and further adversity in September given macro movements.

Investment banking fees increased 2%. Strong activity in advisory and ECM offset lower DCM fees, reflecting deliberate risk and return decisions in a smaller, leveraged fin wallet.

M&A and ECM pipelines remain strong. Lower ICB income reflected £39 million of leveraged fin marks and higher hedging costs in the corporate lending line.

Transaction banking income grew 9% year-on-year, reflecting deposit and fee growth, particularly from trade and working capital. Moving to US Consumer Bank.

RoTE was 10.9% and 19.9% year-to-date. Income decreased 1%, with the Q2 American Airlines portfolio exit broadly offset by Best Egg and business growth.

NII increased 3% year-on-year, with lower average balances more than offset by higher NIM. This reflected mix effects and a circa 10 basis point one-off benefit from a change in the recognition of future customer rewards.

Higher interest rates do not materially affect NIM, as assets typically reprice within a month. Card and consumer loan volumes were as expected, though higher benchmark rates continued to weigh on market-wide pricing of consumer loans distributed through Best Egg.

This created a circa $20 million non-NII headwind in the quarter. Costs increased 14%, reflecting a full quarter of Best Egg costs, and the cost-income ratio was 50%.

We still expect a circa 12% RoTE in '26, excluding the AA gain on sale. Let me step back from the quarterly performance.

In the past 3 years, we have been transforming into a multi-product, digital-only US consumer bank with 23 million customers. The partnership cards franchise remains at its core.

Balances grew 6% organically in the past year as we rebalanced towards retail to improve diversification and risk-adjusted margins. This includes circa 20% growth in General Motors balances since August '25.

The fully digital consumer deposit franchise shown in the middle has grown balances by 53% since '23 to $26.6 billion. These deposits are around 50 to 60 basis points cheaper than wholesale funding and now comprise 84% of total funding.

Most recently, Best Egg has added consumer lending capabilities with circa $7 billion of annual originations. This allows us to deliver even more value to partnership clients and their customers over time.

Bringing these propositions together will drive significant further growth in our most digital division. Our earnings momentum is driving consistently stronger capital generation.

We are on track to generate around 200 basis points of capital this year, and expect more than 230 basis points in '28. This supports progressive shareholder distributions.

Including the £2 billion planned dividend for '26, we have now announced £10.7 billion of distributions since the start of the plan, even before any Q4 buyback. We take a prudent approach to both current and future regulatory requirements regardless of materiality.

Noting recent commentary on our TRS exposure on private credit loans, our approach here is no exception. The conditions to classify the treatment as trading book were met, and our approach supported by appropriate governance internally and external review.

This approach is unchanged under Basel 3.1 rules. For context, the mark-to-market of this exposure is small, currently around £300 million within the £15 billion private credit book, and is equivalent to £1.5 billion of notional.

Looking ahead, our plan and targets are based on operating around the top of our 13% to 14% CET1 ratio, whilst fully absorbing RWA headwinds in 2027. Put differently, the plan did not assume a reduction in Pillar 2A requirements.

As expected, Basel 3.1 will increase RWAs by £8 to £15 billion, equivalent to 30 to 55 basis points of CET1. We now have greater clarity on Pillar 2A, which will reduce the MDA by 59 basis points, more than offsetting the impact of higher RWAs.

This gives greater capital flexibility, and we will update on the expected CET1 operating level within the 13% to 14% range at full year results. Bringing this all together, we are delivering consistent revenue growth and amplifying this with positive operating leverage.

This has driven the majority of the double-digit EPS growth in '24, '25, and year-to-date. In doing so, we are driving more consistent shareholder returns.

Buybacks of £5.8 billion since 2023 have reduced the share count by 12%, further compounding EPS growth and delivering growth in TNAV and dividends of 32%. The plan does not end here.

Before we open for Q&A, let me hand back to Venkat.

Thank you, Anna. Two years ago, we presented a vision anchored in measured ambition and disciplined delivery.

As I told you in February this year, and as Anna has started to show you today, our operational performance and our financial success are two sides of the same coin. With one quarter to go until the end of the original three-year plan, I'm very pleased to say that we have met or are positioned to achieve all of our primary group objectives.

I want to illustrate that with examples across our businesses and then discuss the next stage of our execution ambition. This is to reduce our cost structure and increase operational efficiency.

Let me remind you of our UK retail strategy, the journey on which we have been, and the opportunity from here. This strategy has two pillars.

First, we have repositioned the business into a multi-brand franchise, extending our client reach and the ability to tailor services to different customer needs. We acquired Tesco Bank in 2024, and it now accounts for 20% of card acquisitions and is a key lever in our deposit strategy.

We acquired Kensington Mortgages in 2023. The Kensington brand and capabilities enable us to lend to more complex borrowers, and balances here have more than tripled since the acquisition.

We're delivering a better client experience by investing in technology. This includes our mortgage broker platform, where we have reduced application times from 45 minutes to less than 15, meaningfully improving our broker NPS score from -51 to +70.

As a result, our market share is up 30 basis points since 2023 to 10.4%. The second pillar of our retail strategy is to establish Barclays as the premier UK bank.

Improved customer service has culminated in Barclays having the highest premier NPS among UK peers. As a result, since the end of 2023, we have increased premier mass affluent customers by 27%, driving 23% deposit growth in this segment.

In doing so, we have shifted our deposit mix towards customers with larger balances and with the greatest need for long-term investment planning. We have the customers, including circa 400,000 in Barclays UK, that could benefit from investment advice.

We now have the most compelling low-price, high-quality proposition in private bank and wealth management in the UK. These provide financial advice with no upfront fee, and direct investing on our investment platform with no custody fees.

When it comes to UK corporates, we are uniquely placed to drive growth and investment. We have built the largest UK corporate deposit franchise by investing in transaction banking and having complete client coverage.

This starts with business banking in Barclays UK, through to FTSE 350 clients in the UK corporate bank. As the only full-service UK investment bank, we also serve the very largest FTSE clients in the international corporate bank.

The UK corporate franchise has historically been the beating heart of Barclays, but it has lacked specific attention for some time. This changed after we resegmented the business at the end of 2023, gave it capital, and started reinvesting in technology.

We are driving differentiated growth on both sides of the balance sheet, with lending growing materially faster than the market since 2024, driven by new and existing clients. With a loan-to-deposit ratio of only 38% in the UK corporate bank versus 50% to 75% for peers, we have much further to go.

We are driving growth by delivering a better client experience. Around 45% of our clients now use iPortal, our digital access platform, exclusively, replacing five legacy platforms.

We expect this usage to rise to 100% by the end of this year. All of this will drive greater product usage, supporting our fee income, and allow us to decommission legacy tech platforms.

In the Investment Bank, we're improving the returns footprint by altering the business mix and increasing productivity. Within a broadly stable RWA footprint, we have increased income to average RWAs by 130 basis points since 2023 to now standing at 6.8% in the last 12 months.

Ours is a story of discipline, focused on greater client relevance, where we now rank top five with 66 of our top 100 Markets clients, up from 30 in 2021. To remind you, our target was for 70 out of the top 100 to be top five by the end of this year.

We have driven structurally stronger, more predictable global Markets income in two ways: first, by growing the stable income base; and second, by reducing volatility and the seasonality of the intermediation business. We have increased financing income by about £1 billion since 2023, reflecting the investment which we have made in liquid financing, where we now rank fifth globally.

This creates deeper relationships, with 98 of our top 100 Markets clients choosing Barclays for their financing needs. We are rebalancing towards equities, which now accounts for 45% of the year-to-date revenues in the Markets business versus 32% in 2023.

Equity derivatives and Prime have driven about 90% of this growth. The diversification of our revenues supports performance in a broader range of environments, with Q3 being a case in point, where we saw a 50-50 split in revenues between equities and fixed income.

We're improving performance across our businesses through disciplined delivery and rigorous execution. We have done so by investing in and building a constellation of segment-leading businesses.

These include consumer businesses with over 40 million retail customers globally, the largest UK corporate bank by deposits, and a top-tier global investment bank. As we move from the first three-year plan to the second, we are also transitioning to the next phase of our journey.

This is to accelerate operational improvements and drive even greater cost efficiency through deep technological transformation, reducing the unit cost of product manufacturing, service, and innovation. We're achieving this by standardizing our data, modernizing our infrastructure, and harmonizing our processes.

We will employ AI at scale. AI is the icing on the cake, not the cake.

Investment underpinning this is within the plan we have outlined in February and is being made possible by our operating leverage. By continuing to execute our strategy with discipline and rigor, we are accelerating our ambition and securing structurally higher and all-weather returns beyond 2028.

Segment-leading businesses, ambitious revenue growth, robust cost and operational efficiency, conservative capital and liquidity profiles, rigorous risk management, and strong capital generation: these are the principles and goals by which we aim to live and prosper at Barclays. I'm now open to questions and answers.

As ever, please limit yourself to two questions so we can get round as many of you as possible. Please also introduce yourselves as you start your questions.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning, both.

Hope you're well. I've got two questions: one on capital, one on costs, please.

On capital, the Pillar 2A drop, 59 bips in equity terms, I think it's about 105 basis points in total capital terms. It's huge.

Mathematically, it's equivalent to about £50 billion of RWAs moving into Pillar 1, not the £8 to £15 that you're flagging for Basel 3.1. I just wonder if you could give a bit more colour on this.

Is there something else going on here? Is this actually part of a much broader review of Pillar 2A and not just Basel 3.1?

Maybe as a supplementary to that, if you do land 11.6%, which is what you're saying in the slides this morning, it's very similar to where Lloyds and NatWest are at the moment, and they're targeting a 13% CET1 ratio. I know you're going to tell me we've got to wait for full year, but any insights into how you're thinking about this, would you need to operate a little bit above or slightly higher buffer than those other two banks, maybe 13.5%?

Be helpful for some colour on that, please. Secondly, on costs, thanks so much for the absolute cost guidance for '27.

I think that's really helpful. Afraid though I'm going to ask about 2028, and I'll keep it very simple.

Are we still okay to rely on the bridge, the absolute cost bridge that you gave us with full year results 2025, so that slide 66, that gave us a cost number in effect for 2028? If not, how should we think about '28?

Is it another year of run-the-bank costs being broadly flat like in '27, and then the delta is investments? How should we think about '28 costs, please?

Thank you.

Jonathan. Let me take both of those.

Let me start with Pillar 2A. What we're saying is that we're expecting a reduction in our MDA of 59 basis points.

Essentially where this comes from is we have an annual process around Pillar 2A that includes Basel, but it will include other things. You're right to say that the Basel component is part of it, but that is an annual normal process and is an ongoing piece of work.

The second thing I would say is that Basel is a big, complex change. You have some quite mechanical offsets, and then you have some that are sort of a lot more complex than that.

I think it reflects both of those factors, Jonathan. Quite difficult to read from the outside.

As I step back from it, what it tells me is that we are well-capitalized now in Pillar 2A for the capital environment that we're going to go into, number one. Number two, it gives us more capital flexibility as we go forward in the plan because we had not anticipated this Pillar 2 reduction.

The other thing that I would say in response to your question, obviously, we will talk about the range within which we expect to operate at the full year, but you should expect us to operate an appropriate buffer to the MDA as we do now. Don't expect that to change.

To go to your second question, what we said at full year remains intact, specifically that you should expect modest cost growth and you should expect positive jaws. What we're trying to highlight for you today is that in this phase of the plan, there is an increased intensity of investment, but we are also highlighting an increased efficiency so that efficiency is up commensurately so that we can contain costs and make those two things true.

That's

how we think about it. Venkat, anything you'd want to add?

Let me add on both, Jonathan. On capital, I think as we've made clear, in our planning up to now, we had taken into account what we thought would be the increases coming from the Basel process that's due to us in early January, and that's as we said, 30 to 55 basis points.

We had not in our planning process, as Anna just said, taken into account for this Pillar 2A adjustment offset would be negative. Of course, net-net, this is a tailwind, as you point out.

Then on the efficiency side, just to add context to Anna's answer, what I would say is we have been investing in technology, and continue deeply to invest in technology, simplifying our processes, modernizing our infrastructure, and I would expect this to yield results over time. As we have clarity on it, we will share it with you.

Thank you, Jonathan. Can we have the next question, please?

Thanks for taking my questions. First one is on the investment bank.

Obviously, FICC, you've called out, I think, Venkat, I think you somewhat disappointing, I think is the word you used. You've also explained that the intermediation sort of activity was slower in the second half of the quarter.

Is there something you could sort of help us when we think about going forward, is there any sort of particularly sort of bad sort of, I don't know, marks in the quarter that should bounce back, or is it a reasonable run rate obviously considering seasonality from here, is it maybe a bit of colour in that sort of in particular FICC number, but maybe broader IB activity? Related to that, Anna, you mentioned that you were, I can't remember the word you used, but that you were leaning a bit more in with clients and increasing the RWAs to take advantage of opportunities.

Going forward, would you be more open to give the division a bit more balance sheet and RWA growth? Thank you.

Yeah. Hey, Alvaro, thank you.

Look, there's nothing particular to call out. I think this was one of those quarters where in parts of fixed income, in rates, European rates particularly, and parts of credit, the intermediation was just a little weaker.

We still think we've got a very good, strong client franchise. We see that in the engagement and the numbers.

It was just one of those things where it was just sort of weaker for a period. Nothing particular to call out.

Of course, we're giving this attention to try to understand how to improve it. I would say also there are other parts of fixed income, like securitized products, in which we've been investing a lot, which have done very well.

This is not a general fixed income story. It's parts of it.

Our franchise continues to be strong, and we'll do better. Anna?

Yeah. Let me just add to that before I go into RWAs.

I completely agree with Venkat. The things I would add is what we're really pleased with, Alvaro, is the areas that we've been investing in have done really well.

If you look at our performance in equities, if you look at our performance in M&A, if you look at our performance in ECM, they have benched very well with the US peer group. That would not always have been the case.

It's really reflective of the investments that we've made. I think that diversification of income, particularly as we look forward into the fourth quarter, is important.

As for leaning in on clients, the RWAs in the investment bank have been broadly flat since 2022, actually well before the plan that we're about to complete started even, and they've moved between about 195 and about 205. The thing that we've called out that's perhaps a little bit different is we are nearing the end of the three-year review of our investment banking loan portfolio, you are seeing us lean in a little bit more there in terms of UK lending.

Whilst outside of our target, that's completely consistent with our view of the UK. That's the only thing I would specifically call out, Alvaro.

Thank you for the question.

Yeah. Alvaro, if I may, just sort of to pick up where Anna left off, when you look now we are 11 quarters into this three-year plan, and you look at the investment bank, it has delivered exactly what we wanted it to deliver, outperforming in some respects.

Puts us in a very good position. Go back 11 quarters, we said we'd do three things.

We said we'd increase the revenues in the investment bank, we'd keep capital flat, which Anna has just said we've done for 5 years, and we'd improve profitability. Nobody thought we could do all three.

Here we are. Profitability is approaching group levels at RoTE.

Revenues have gone up. The areas in which we've invested in, as Anna has said, equity capital markets, M&A, and equities generally, and financing, the structural improvements in stable revenue streams and in financing, return per unit RWA, all of that has worked, and we've continued to maintain our ranks in spite of others investing more.

The overall thing about RWAs or capital in the investment bank is we've always said it's a proportional game. Right?

That proportion is affected in part by what we do in the IB and in part by what happens elsewhere. In the IB, we stuck to our guns: £200 billion of RWAs has been the average over 5 years, and the variation has been minimal, £5 billion this way or that way.

This is playing out as advertised, as desired, and it puts us in a good spot continuing forward.

Next question, please. Thank you, Alvaro.

Good morning. Thanks for taking the question.

I just wanted to come back on capital, please, appreciating that the > £15 billion capital return guidance you gave at full year '26 was open-ended. I do think that was an area that somewhat disappointed the market in terms of the relative level of ambition on capital return versus the plan for '24 to '26.

Given that you've been able to accelerate your investment plans because of the revenue surprises this year, you're getting done what you hoped to get done, but more rapidly, and given that you've now got confirmation on Pillar 2, which I think was foreseeable in terms of quantum, but it's not something you had banked in the plan. Now you can bank that.

Will you consider revisiting that > £15 billion capital return aspiration? Cuz I think the reason you left it open-ended was you wanted to leave slack in the plan for either potential M&A or potential accelerations in your investment plans.

In terms of M&A, given performance of the shares year-to-date, your acquisition currency is maybe a bit softer than you would like, I would assume. In terms of the investment, you've already been able to accelerate that.

Is that something you'll consider revisiting alongside reconsidering the 13 to 14 range? Thank you.

Thanks, Chris, for the question. Let me just recap on what we said at full year '25.

The first was that we were planning at the top end of our range because we had clarity on Pillar 1, but we didn't have clarity on Pillar 2, and other regulatory changes like, for example, IRB. We are clearly in a different position now.

We do have that Pillar 2 clarity. We're very keen to get through Basel 3.1 implementation at the end of the year before we give further consideration to this point with you.

The second thing that we called out was that we were very clear that if you took the capital generation in the plan and the investments and the distributions in the plan, the capital generation was clearly bigger than the other two. We said very deliberately that that gave us flex in order to either return that excess to shareholders or, alternatively, invest it in the business, but that was a very, very high bar.

That remains exactly the same, and our capital hierarchy is very clear: starts with regulatory, follows with shareholder distributions, thirdly, investment in the business. All of that remains as was.

The only new piece here is the Pillar 2A. We will come back at the year end, Chris, and we will talk about the range within which we operate.

You can see the focus that we have on returning capital to shareholders through the actions that we have taken in distributions in this plan alone, but specifically in this year. We're at 10.7 now, including the planned dividend that we have for the full year, and that's before we've done a full year buyback.

I'm not going to be pressed for an answer now, but we are clearly considering these matters, and we will come back to you. Thank you.

Next question, please.

Hi, morning. I want to come back on capital and costs, please.

On capital, just in terms of the Pillar 2A guidance, it's clearly very specific for the start of next year, whereas the RWA range is still a little bit wide. I just wondered if you could maybe narrow that range at all, or whether the fact that the Pillar 2A benefit is coming in a bit better than most of us anticipated, whether that implies the RWA headwinds might be a little bit towards the upper end of that range at all.

Then on the costs, thanks for all the new disclosure and guidance. I also want to come back on the 2028 costs.

Before Q2 and the extra structural cost actions, consensus had been assuming a '28 cost number sub-£18.4 billion. If we use slide 9 in terms of the sort of building blocks, I'm just trying to understand whether it's sort of realistic to assume that efficiencies can more than offset the business growth and investments from the £18.4 billion we start from in '27, if you like.

Thank you.

Thank you, Guy. I'll take the first one, and I'll start on the second one, and then invite Venkat to add.

We've given you a Pillar 1 range, if you like, an RWA range, just because, reflecting on what I said before, Basel 3.1 is a big and complex change. That range reflects the degree of mitigation that we will be able to implement as we go through that transition.

It doesn't relate to any specific FRTB point or anything. It's more broadly an implementation range, given its complexity.

We are being cautious at this stage. That's why we're saying we will speak to you at the full year.

I wouldn't narrow that range for you at this point. On your second point, recognizing 2028 costs, but also recognizing that consensus for 2028 is very wide.

What we would reiterate here is we do expect modest cost growth. We do expect the cost-income ratio in 2028 to be in the low 50s.

All of that remains intact. What we're trying to help you here with is to understand that the way we are managing our costs is not by constraining investments, but by driving the operational efficiency of the bank in order to bring the run-the-bank costs down and create operating leverage.

That is our focus. You should assume that that is going to continue into 2028.

Venkat?

Absolutely. That is our focus.

We think that the promise of technology and our implementation of the technology is being realized. We think more will be realized, and we're going to drive hard at that realization.

Know that there is a great ambition and focus and discipline to bring to costs and cost efficiency what you have seen in other parts of this plan in the last 3 years, which is business growth, customer service, capital discipline, revenue growth.

Okay. Thank you so much for that.

Can we have the next question, please?

Morning. Another one on capital, I'm afraid.

Just the opposite question. The USCB moving to IRB, I think you say there's only going to be a minimal Pillar 2A change there.

Why is that one smaller than the offset benefit that you get from Basel, or is that something that could come down over time as well? Then the leverage ratio as well.

Should I expect the common equity Tier 1 component of the leverage ratio to come down, and could that potentially be binding you from going too low relative to 13%? Then lastly, just on the outlook with rates at the moment, can you give us any colour on what you think the rate curve will do to the UK business specifically?

I presume we shouldn't just reprice our hedges to higher rates. What do you think are the main potential offsets within the UK business from a higher-rate environment?

Okay. Thanks, Rob.

Look, in terms of capital and Pillar 2A with IRB, you might recall that in I want to say Q1 2025, the increase associated with this was about 0.1 of CET of MDA. We do expect it to be more modest or modest.

The reason I say that is this is much more BAU. This is much more, we're used to implementing these models.

It's not the kind of big, complex change that we see with Basel. I definitely wouldn't scale them to try and get another Pillar 2A meaningful Pillar 2 offset here.

That's certainly not what we're expecting. We might see something modest.

To be clear, we've got nothing in the plan. Hopefully, that's clear.

Just on BUK and the rate curve. I'm going to answer your question by going in a different direction to start with, bear with me.

I think the thing that is most prevalent in the market at the moment is obviously competition around deposits. We think that that comes not from the structural hedge directly, but it's actually coming from the fact that there has been strong lending in the sector, you see paydown of TFSME, you also see some deposit takers who are not loan makers in this part of the sector, and what that's doing is putting a bit of funding pressure into this area.

That's manifesting in two ways: one is more covered bond issuance, and the second is intense competition around term deposits. That's what we believe is happening.

We would see that as being not transitory given what I've just described. What does it mean for us?

We're in a slightly different position because clearly what we are doing here is we have a different funding reality. This business has a loan-to-deposit ratio of 90%, it has an LCR, last time we reported it, of about 167, it has really good liquidity levels.

We will lean in because we see the relationship and the ongoing relationship of deposits being really important here, but that means we can be more selective, if you like, more disciplined. Of course, from our perspective, we have a very, very powerful structural hedge.

What you are seeing at the moment is that we're able to balance these things in a few ways. Firstly, our focus on deposits is not just on term deposits.

It's actually more broadly across the relationship, and you can see that in the growth in our Premier current accounts. That's really important.

Secondly, as we approach the fixed-term market, we're approaching it through the lens of relationships, about 90% of our growth year-to-date in ISAs is from Premier. We've been able to be very, very disciplined there.

Also, that's allowing us to balance the margin impact, if you like, on the businesses as a whole. That's why you're seeing a broadly stable NIM.

It's moving around a little bit, but we're being able to contain that point. I wouldn't drop the upside in the structural hedge straight through to the bottom of your calculation.

There will be some offsets here, and it's coming from increased funding costs, which are prevalent across the industry. For those banks who have more liquidity and who have that more powerful structural hedge, they will fare better in this environment.

Okay. Sorry, on the leverage ratio.

No, not really, is the easy answer to that question. Venkat's just reminding me before I go on to the next question.

Thank you, Rob. Can we have the next question, please?

Hello, good morning. Just picking up a little bit more on the UK, maybe.

Thank you for the colour you've given just now. If I look at slide 6, it does look like there's continued mix shift between savings account and time deposit, and that's consistent with sector data we have seen.

I think in the last few weeks and months, we have maybe seen more competitors coming in, Morgan Stanley and Raisin, and also NS&I maybe stepping up a little bit more as well. What are you seeing in terms of the front-end trends in terms of the deposit market?

I think you said that an increase in hedge in October would reduce product margin next quarter. What is the underlying product margin you're expecting excluding that effect?

That's number one. Second question is on the USCB.

I think the higher benchmark rate is maybe a 20 million headwind in non-NII. I suppose even if we were to add it back, total income is still a little bit below where Q1 was.

I think at the time you said that it wouldn't be a bad guide for Q1 as a guide for the rest of the year. What are the moving parts there, and how should we think about that line going forwards?

Okay. Perlie, why don't I take those?

What you see in Barclays UK is that clearly there is growth in term deposits, but current accounts are absolutely flat, and have been for some considerable time. Actually, there's a slide in the back of the deck.

It's in the appendix, that you can have a look at there. I think what you're seeing is intense competition, as I've said, but somewhat churn within fixed-term deposits as opposed to migration out of current accounts.

In terms of product margin, we're not guiding to NIM at all, and all we were calling out is that flight path or that chart is actually quite difficult to interpret because to the extent that we increase the size of the structural hedge, that means that that income is coming out of product margin and going into the structural hedge bucket. That's the only thing we're warning you about: net-nil impact on margin.

I would remind everybody, though, that, particularly given the new disclosure that we've given you today, our deposit story is much broader than BUK, particularly across the UK. You can see that in the strength of our corporate deposits, and equally, you can see there the stability that we have in the underlying operational accounts or current accounts, if you like, within corporate.

Very, very similar story there. An ongoing increase in deposits, but real stability in the core.

Your second question, which is about the roughly 20 million headwinds, what we said at the beginning of the year was we expected to build back by the end of the year to broadly the same sort of level as we saw in Q1. The only difference that we are calling out is in relation to the sold prices on Best Egg.

Everything else remains the same. We've got good underlying organic growth in cards.

They're growing at about 6%, exactly the same as we're seeing in the UK, actually. Best Egg originations were 2 billion in the quarter.

We said it would be 7 billion over the year. All of that loan origination, the NIM is at 13.7, deposits are up by 15% year-on-year.

All of those factors are playing out exactly as we said.

Impairments are well-behaved.

Impairments are very well-behaved, actually. They're flat, despite the fact that AA has left the platform, and we would have expected that to have about a 30 basis point impact.

The only thing we are calling out that is different, Perlie, is that 20 million. Hopefully, that gives you a good guide.

Thank you, Perlie. Next question, please.

Yeah. Good morning, everybody.

Thank you for the questions. Within financing in the IB, is it possible to provide the split of growth or of revenues between equities and FICC?

You mention on slide 29, I think it is, that 90% of the equities growth year-to-date has come via Prime and derivs. Therefore, it seems as though FICC financing must have been particularly weak in Q3.

I'm wondering how much of that would have been the conditions you flagged in late September versus a proactive decision, if at all, to reallocate capital between FICC and equities? Then, mindful of the group revenue target for this year, would you be able to tell us whether those conditions persisted into November, and how we should think about FICC seasonality to trend in Q4 this year versus the typical patterns we can see from prior years?

Second question, the small box you have on slide 10, I think that's probably one of the clearest call-outs we've had in the sector on the tangible benefits of AI-enabled savings. It feels like the opportunity set there basically shifted higher probably between February and July, which partly explains the additional SCAs.

Looking ahead, is the annual efficiency opportunity you see now in 2028 also greater than perhaps it was earlier this year? Okay.

Chris, I'm going to start, then I'm going to hand to Venkat, and then I'll pick up on slide 10, and I'm sure he'll have something to say as well. I think like most participants in the industry, most of the growth in financing has come from Prime.

We've also seen a very strong performance in derivs in equities, I wouldn't attribute all of the growth to Prime. This really isn't a capital matter.

Prime and FICC, fixed income financing, are leverage-heavy, not capital-heavy. Capital would not be in consideration here.

Venkat, do you want to talk?

Yeah. Chris, the way I think about it is turn it into a couple of things.

Financing revenues grow because of relationships, because that's really, really important. You have to get on somebody's financing platform.

As we said, 98 of our top 100 clients have financing relationships with us. That financing relationship is strong both in equities and in fixed income.

We've been one of the top fixed income financiers forever and ever, and we continue to retain that market position. That's structural: capability, the relationship with the client, and for us, differentiating is we look at it as one.

The client has one offering which they receive from us, as opposed to different sales people coming in with different offerings. That's structural.

Then cyclically or seasonally, what you get is what's happening in the equity markets, what's happening in proportions of the equity markets. Over time, people have called out what's been happening in semiconductor stocks, what's been happening in Asian equities.

Those are things that seasonally come up and down. In fixed income, it is levels of rates and types of spreads, and therefore what are people trying to borrow and lend.

What I would expect coming into the fall, it's very hard to say. Equity market volatility can certainly cut both ways in terms of how people want to borrow.

I think in fixed income, what you've got is greater interest because of some greater spread volatility than you've seen in a long, long time, which should, coming off the low base it has had, increase interest, and rates are higher, and that should help. These are very crude ways to describe it.

Okay. Let me start on slide 10, and then I'll ask Venkat to comment.

What you see here is that we've got pretty good cadence, Chris, going, where we've been spending typically around 300 million and getting about 700 million back. That's because the gross efficiencies that we are targeting relate in part to people actions over the last couple of years, but also sort of more general process improvements, etc., which have fewer costs associated with them.

I think more specifically to your question, look, the changes that we are making in the third and fourth quarters of this year are sizable in terms of the impact. They relate both to the simplification of the organization and to some of the impacts that we're starting to see from AI.

I would say that they are very large in comparison to what we've previously sort of undertaken. I wouldn't necessarily expect that to repeat, nor indeed the SCAs, as you can see in our cost disclosures.

I think what we are seeing is that the technology opportunities here continue to indicate that there are further things that we can do to make the organization much, much more efficient. Venkat, you might want to pick up.

Yeah. I think there's a confluence of a couple of things happening here.

One is what Anna just said: the technology opportunity set has increased, and its capability has increased. Second is what do you have to do to harness that?

To harness that, you have to build the infrastructure, to improve your processes, modern technology framework, simplified processes. Now, that requires perseverance and investment, which we've been putting in.

Given the capital generation which we've had, given the success of the plan so far, that has given us both the capability and the will to make those investments. What you're seeing is technology being able to deliver more.

AI sits on top of this technology. You've seen the capability financially and otherwise to make the investments, and the will to do it in a sustained way.

We've presented today what we've done for 2026, and we'll continue to persevere hard at this over the next few years.

Okay. Next question, please.

Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

I guess the first one for Venkat. I think Barclays is executing really energetically on strategy through restructuring and the acquisitions that you've made, and I'm not sure the market is giving you much credit for that.

I wondered whether you could start off by commenting on the sort of recent news flow and the tone of that news flow around capital allocations and TRSs in the IB. The share price has proven reactive to that sort of coverage.

As CEO and as a risk professional, how do you think about risk in the business, the forecastability of earnings, and how do you talk to the market about those sorts of factors, please? Then secondly, one for Anna, just coming back to slide 9.

I want to say thank you for the absolute cost guide. I think that is helpful given some of the questions we were getting.

Focusing on slide 9, your numbers for business growth, inflation, and investments are nearly 8% of starting costs. Two things.

Number one, are we to think that those are the sorts of numbers that are required or might be normal for the bank, there's 1.4 billion in total? Then secondly, just in really high-level terms, what are the sort of areas that are absorbing that kind of money in 2027, please?

Thanks a lot.

Hey, Jason. Thank you.

Very, very good questions. Let me begin with the first one.

Thank you for recognizing the effort we've been putting into what you call energetic execution and disciplined execution. Appreciative of your words.

There's a philosophy here, there's an approach, there's an attitude, there's a process by which we carry it out, and then there is what I would call noise in the market. Our philosophy is clear: on execution, on making these plans, we've laid it out for the last 3 years, we laid it out in February for the next 3 years, and we're telling you what we are doing, whether it's on revenue, whether it's on business, whether it's on capital, whether it's on costs, whether it's on investment.

We will do our very best to continue to carry it forth in that disciplined and hopefully predictable way. When it comes to risk and whether it's regulatory aspects or otherwise, we take this really, really seriously.

I said earlier today on a TV interview that for 10 years at Barclays, I've been Chief Risk Officer, headed the Markets division for a brief period, and CEO. In this entire period, I have laid great stock on the importance of following the capital rules in letter and in spirit and being very prudently capitalized.

We aim to do so, and we are careful about what we do in these matters. Anna has spoken earlier about these TRSs, both in terms of our approach and the quantum involved.

What I will say to you is our commitment to continue disciplined execution, careful stewardship of the company's resources, including capital and liquidity. We've been very clear even on capital that you've seen the flow of the CET1, the capitalization ratio, over the last number of quarters coming to the level where it has, staying at the level where it has, because we said our most important thing is to be well-capitalized and well-provided for in capital and liquidity.

Continue to expect to see that disciplined execution, energetic execution, as you say, and prudent stewardship of our resources.

Okay. Thank you, Venkat.

Let me take everybody back to slide 9. The numbers that you're talking about, Jason, include business growth and inflation, and I just want to be very clear about what we put in there.

That also includes investment, BAU investment in our ongoing businesses. All of the benefits that you are seeing coming through in Premier, in Corporate, in equities, etc., etc., are all contained within that number.

We think that is a cost of doing business, and therefore, we're giving you a very fulsome run-the-bank cost here that includes inflation, includes that BAU investment, includes the costs of acquisitions also. I genuinely think that you can't separate that from efficiency because, by growing the bank, you have the opportunity to create operating leverage.

It's not just through SCAs, as I've mentioned before, it's actually about process improvement and the kind of volume benefits that you get or reducing marginal cost benefits that you get when you start pushing more volume through an existing platform. I will contrast that with the investments on the right-hand side that relate to future fee growth.

Think wealth, think transaction banking, and think some of the technology changes that Venkat called out at the full year. I would really urge you to take them together.

The way we think about it is this is at least a neutral run-the-bank cost. Our objective here, because the intensity of investment has gone up, the intensity of efficiency has to go up.

Expect us to be pushing that collection, if you like, of things that are bridged by the arrow very hard. That's what we're saying.

Okay. Thank you.

Can I have the next question, please?

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

Just a couple of follow-ups, please. Firstly, on the hedge allocation, I think at the start of this year, you expected 55% of the hedge to be allocated to Barclays UK.

That's now increased to 70%. Intrigued on why the allocation has changed so abruptly over the course of the year, and is 70% a good guide for the allocation going forward as well, please?

Then the second question, a much broader question, and it is a follow-on from many of the ones you've already been asked, but you've reiterated the 31.5 billion revenue guide. If you take 9 months annualized, it gets you to about 31.5, but usually, you do see seasonality in the investment bank in Q4.

Can you just talk through the puts and takes on that revenue guide and what's giving you the confidence to reiterate it, please? Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Andy.

I think the disclosure that we have given you, earlier in the year, it was actually about the growth in the structural hedge income. That confused everybody.

What we've done now is we have reverted to a much simpler table of income allocation, not growth in income, but income itself, which is why you are seeing that movement from 55 to 70. You are still seeing the allocation going down to BUK.

That doesn't mean to say that it'll go down in absolute terms. Of course, it won't be.

It's just that the structural hedge income is growing faster outside BUK. That's in part because of the equity structural hedge, but it's also because the tenors of deposit relationships outside of BUK are actually longer, and that really speaks to the strength in our corporate deposit book.

That's what's going on there. Apologies, but hopefully now clearer.

To your second question, look, the simple answer is year-to-date income growth is up 8%, and 31.5 billion is 8% year-on-year growth. That's a simple answer.

Let me try and be a bit more helpful. We still see a path to circa 31.5 billion, although it's clear that Q3 income was weaker than we would have expected it to be or planned to be.

Here's how I think about the building blocks, and those building blocks reflect the diversity of income across the group and our strategy and the natural momentum that we've got in this business. Let me start with the most certain, which is NII.

NII has been about 200 million up each quarter year-to-date. We expect that to continue.

What I should have said is to reach about 35.5

billion,

Q4 needs 31.5 billion, Q4 needs to be 500 million up. So 200 million of it, we believe relates to NII.

The second part of this I would call out is financing. Financing has been, on average, about 150 million up year-to-date.

The third piece actually relates to something we talked about earlier, which is really the strength in our investment banking business. We have very good line of sight to the M&A pipeline.

We have good line of sight to the capital markets pipeline, although obviously that one is much more influenced by the uncertainty in the environment, and therefore, there's a bit more uncertainty there about when things will complete. M&A is much more certain.

Then finally, that brings us to Markets, which is the thing that we've been focused on here today. Again, I'd just remind you, we've had very good momentum in Markets all year.

FICC intermediation specifically has been weaker in Q3. That's how we think about it.

We continue to work towards that number, Andy. Just to be really clear, our north star for this year is RoTE, and for that RoTE to be greater than 12.

That is the number that we are most focused on. Okay.

Thank you. Next question, please.

Hi. Thanks, guys.

Just circling back to some of the previous comments and the implied kind of guidance. I guess just based on the back of the cost guide, or the implied for 2028, we talked about modest cost growth and still sticking to the low-50s cost-income ratio.

When I'm doing that, I'm kind of getting to a revenue expectation of or guide of around 36 billion-plus. That's about 5% above consensus.

I guess my first question is really what's kind of driving that or where you see the kind of delta versus the consensus on that? Then secondly, if that is correct, then I guess that kind of points more to a RoTE of I guess closer to 16% versus the greater than 14 target and the kind of 15 that consensus has got.

Just basically curious what your thoughts are there and if that is consistent or, essentially, do you expect to materially beat your RoTE guidance or am I missing something there? Thank you.

Amit. Let me take that.

I'm not going to comment on consensus numbers for 2028. I'll just take you back to the guidance that we gave you at the beginning of the year, which remains intact, which is between '25 to '28, we expect a greater than 5% revenue CAGR between those years.

We expect the cost-income ratio to be in the low 40s, and we've given you some guidance around absolutes and that we expect modest growth. Then the final point is that the RoTE guidance is greater than 14%.

Beyond that, I don't think we're in a position to sort of to guide further. Hopefully, you can see from the momentum in the business and the kind of confidence that we're putting around our cost plans and intentions that we are very focused on meeting those points of guidance.

Thank you. Can I have the next question, please?

Yeah. Thanks very much.

Good morning, everybody. I just had two questions.

One was on credit. I noticed that your Stage 3 coverage is down quite a bit, and it seems to be driven by rest of the world corporate loans, where non-performing loans are up quite a lot in the quarter.

I wonder if you could tell us something about what are you seeing there? Is that a specific one-off, or is that a trend?

It's interesting, you're not taking any additional provisions against that, I just wondered why that might be or what might the drivers be of that. That's my first question.

The second question is a broader question, I guess for Venkat, which I probably asked a derivative of this more than once before, but I guess it's as pertinent now as ever. It rather as Jason said, you're delivering a lot, you're delivering arguably ahead of the plan in a number of areas.

You're still the cheapest bank in Europe, and probably the cheapest of a major size. I'm just trying to work out, is that something that burns internally?

Is that something that you feel affronted by? If it is, what can you do about it?

Because clearly, delivering on your current plan and delivering on your last plan is not going to make any difference. We can see that and the shares and the rating relatively is moving in line.

Should we expect, as you come to the full year, things that you think you can do that can actually change [inaudible]? It's not something that just time is going to

heal,

is my question. Then just related to that, is there any reason why somebody shouldn't bid for Barclays?

There's nothing in Barclays that stops that happening, is that? That's my 1.2 derivative of that question.

Thanks very much.

Ed, please, could you repeat the last question? Your line is breaking up rather.

Oh.

The part where is there something anybody could be disappointed? Just that part.

I didn't understand that.

Sorry. Can you hear better now?

Sorry.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. My second question was you're delivering very well on the strategy, arguably ahead in places, but you're still the cheapest bank in Europe and probably the world.

I'm just trying to work out, is that something that sort of burns internally? Because after 10 years, time is not going to heal that, I don't think.

Should we expect, as you come to the full year, are there things you can do to try and address that? Is that something you want to address?

I guess, related to that, is there any intrinsic reason why a bank shouldn't bid for Barclays? Is there anything in there that stops people taking advantage of that cheap price?

Thanks very much.

Okay. I will start, and then I'm going to hand to Venkat for that lengthy question.

Ed, I looked at the same piece of disclosure, actually, and it's quite difficult to read because actually what the table shows is the full year picture at the bottom and then the Q3 position at the top. That movement in Stage 3 is actually FX.

It's from the full year to now. It's not actually a Q2 to Q3 movement.

Appreciate that the disclosure doesn't necessarily make that intuitively clear. There is nothing beyond that that I would call out to you.

It's just FX. Okay.

I'm going to yeah.

Go ahead. Thank you.

You've given me the toughest question for the day so far. Look, first of all, thank you for what you're saying about the fundamental performance of the bank, which, of course, I agree with and I share.

I think we are operating well, and I'm very gratified by it. I would not be human if I said that I was more gratified with the way the stock market was valuing us a few months ago than I am today.

There are lots of factors that go into this. At a simple level, we control a lot of the inputs, and those are the inputs which we manage, and I hope we get the right output.

I think our strategy is now 3 years old approximately, and for the first 2.5 years, the outputs, I think, recognized the inputs. The inputs are, as you say, earnings are going up, etc., etc.

I personally have the greatest conviction in our ability to achieve our targets, our will to execute in a disciplined and energetic manner. Having studied mathematics for a lot of my life, in the fundamental value that will come out of that in the net present value of an ownership stake in Barclays.

If I look at it that way, I do think that the fundamentals and reason will prevail. They have for a long, long time.

I don't think I should let 6 months affect us. There's a lot going on in the world.

I think when I look at the stock and I look at what should affect stock prices, and something I've spent a good part of my life studying, it's important for management teams to control the inputs, to run a company well, to produce the returns for the shareholders, and then the shareholders will eventually, I think, value it appropriately.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ed. Can we have the next question, please?

Morning, both. Thanks for taking my questions.

I'm sorry if I've missed this already, but how much did your structural hedge notional grow by in October? I think you called it out.

I think when we spoke in Q3, the expectation was that the notional would remain flattish to the year end, and current accounts have been flat in Q3. I'm just wondering what assumptions have changed.

I know Dan's parted the bank in the quarter, I'm wondering whether you have a new head of Treasury who is looking at things a bit differently in respect of operating with a strict caterpillar in an elevated rate environment. Then secondly, given the swap rates are elevated, can you give us some more colour on what you're seeing at the front end on the mortgage pipeline?

Banks think about spreads holistically. Do you think you can grow mortgage spreads in the current higher rate environment to partially offset lower deposit spreads if competition remains intense?

Thank you.

Okay. Ben, we didn't call it out.

You can see it's been broadly stable at the quarter end. To the extent that we change the hedge notional, that means that we have more confidence in the stability of interest-insensitive balances.

The caterpillar remains strict is the way I would describe it.

Oh, yeah.

To your second question on swap rates and mortgages, look, when swap rates move around, we can see price volatility in mortgages. We've certainly seen that both through the quarter and continuing.

I think what we are seeing is that the market has swung a little bit towards remortgage certainly in the current environment. We're seeing good demand there.

That is good for us because everybody forgets that before we bought Kensington, everybody saw us as a very vanilla remortgage bank, and we have very, very good levels of retention. Our retention is around 80%, very pleased with

that. Part of that is the investments we've made in the technology for remortgaging.

Your time went from 45 minutes to 15 minutes to get the application approved. These little things go a long way.

Absolutely. I think in terms of mortgage spreads, there's going to be a little bit of a mixed thing here happening, I would call out.

Your question's a good one, though. Rather than talking about mortgage spreads specifically, if I refer back to the answer I gave before, funding costs in retail banking have gone up.

That is certainly true. Just because of that growth in lending, the reduction of TFSME, and the other participants that I called out, and you've seen that in fixed-term deposits.

That's going to have to come out somewhere, but it's not something that I would call out right now. Okay.

Perhaps we could go to the next question, please.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

I have two on the investment banking. On FICC, sorry for coming back on this one, you mentioned the lower level of activity of clients.

I was wondering if also you had some own proprietary trading that had some kind of impact, or the market-making activity. Sometimes the definition is a bit blurred, and so perhaps you had some position in your books that given the fact that the rates and the spreads moved the way they did may have had an impact on your performance this quarter.

If that's the case, could you please just give us a bit of a colour around that? Secondly, on financing on the market activity, I see of course that's a very good part of your equity story as you're increasing that component, which tends to be more stable.

That's first very very much a good development. I was wondering if you see room for continuing increasing that part of the business, also perhaps gaining market shares at the expense of the other banks, or you feel that you've now reached the market share you're comfortable with and it would be difficult gaining market share going forward.

Also, if there are any specific risks that you see in financing. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Alberto.

On FICC, on fixed income, there's nothing to call out. This is a client-driven business with risk management limits.

You can see our VAR numbers. We run all the desks very prudently, aim to do so.

There's really nothing to call out here. Second, on financing, one of the things we've said here is that 98 of our top 100 clients have financing relationships with us.

I've also said that what we aim to do is to do this with our very, very biggest clients and to do more of it with them. The risks in this business are always client selection.

There are names of prominent funds every now and then. There was one in this last quarter, which can cause anxiety for banks if they deal with them.

I'm happy to say we didn't deal with the one that was mentioned. Client selection is important, and then being watchful of volatility in the markets is important.

Having said all of that, as I said, refocus on the larger clients with whom we have the deeper relationships, and I would look to gain share by doing more with them rather than expanding the universe of clients beyond what I think is prudent.

Okay. Thank you very much for that.

May we have the next question, please, which I believe is the last question. Thank you.

Yes, morning. Thanks for taking my question.

Just one on financing, one on the UK corporate lending growth, please. On financing, coming back on that topic, what constraints are the growth in Prime financing versus fixed income financing?

Between those two, which offer the best return after funding, liquidity, and balance sheet costs, please? Then on the UK corporate lending growth, as you deploy more and more deposits into lending, what do you see as a bottleneck here?

Is it demand from corporates? Is it pricing, the credit appetite, or even your platform?

Thank you very much.

Okay. Why don't I start?

I'm sure Venkat will add. On financing growth, I think the simple point here is that Venkat often calls Barclays the house that fixed income built.

We have always had a much stronger market share in fixed income financing than we have in Prime. What we've been able to do is grow Prime alongside fixed income financing and really leverage clients across both parts of that business, as Venkat said, running it as a single face to the client.

I think our ranking on Prime is still below what it would be in fixed income financing. That's probably the simple answer, but I'll let him add.

On UK corporate lending, the way I think about this is we are the largest bank for corporate deposits in the UK. Now, we make that somewhat difficult to understand because it sits across three different divisions, but we brought that together for you today.

We also have the lowest loan-to-deposit ratio. That tells you that we have very strong relationships and a real opportunity here to grow across business banking, across international corporate banking, and UKCB, across all three of those stripes.

I wouldn't say there's no liquidity constraint here. It's really about growing those relationships and being open to lend to those clients, which we have been, and we've built capability.

We've now got about 45% of our corporate banking clients on iPortal. That will be 100% by the end of the year, and that means that they can bring their relationship much more holistically together.

The growth that you've seen in our lending is even before that technology really starts to take hold. Venkat, anything you would want to add on financing and Prime?

Just working backwards on the corporate lending. What you've seen over the last couple 3 years is we've actually removed bottlenecks.

The technological investment in iPortal is one of them, and then the capital and the balance sheet we've lent to this business is the other. The focus is really strong, and for all the other reasons Anna said that we are very confident in this area.

We are the largest corporate bank in the UK. Second, on financing, just the thing to add is that we view the relationship with the client holistically.

We do fixed income and equities with both, and that's partly our working with the largest clients. There's not a competitive element between capital allocation between the two of them.

It is actually combined and holistic coverage. That is the basis of that franchise, which is the strong client relationship.

Listen, thank you, everybody. Thanks for your time, thanks for your attention, thanks for your tough questions and your encouraging words.

Anna and I always find this call a pleasure. Thank you.