“Clearly, we've seen -- we're on track to have a record year this year.”

In context

“s is affecting both plan sponsor demand for risk transfer as well as pricing for transactions? And also in the past, I think you've given a rule of thumb for the earnings contribution from each $1 billion of sales. I'm just wondering if this is still the right level to think about? Ramy Tadros: Eric, it's Ramy here. I'll answer the second question first. Yes, that's still the rule of thumb still holds and that's how you should think about the earnings run rate of these deals. With respect to the overall PRT market, clearly, I think the headline number to look at is the overall funding level which is going to be helped by rising interest rates and therefore, improve if you fill the affordability and the funding levels of defined benefit plans to engage in any kind of pension risk transfer. Clearly, we've seen -- we're on track to have a record year this year. With respect to PRT, we're extremely pleased with winning our largest deal ever with IBM. And we still see a very robust pipeline in front of us. I mean, we are the market leader here. We have deep experience working with plan sponsors and their advisers on all aspects of pension risk transfers. And we have a very clear strategy in this market. We're focused on the jumbo end of the market. That placed our competitive strengths in terms of our rating, the size of our balance sheet, our investment capabilities and you see large sponsors like IBM are looking for solution providers with a very long track record of being in this business. I'd also note that the jumbo end of the market is the part of the market where the competitive set of providers tends to be somewhat smaller given all the ot”