Thank you for standing by. And welcome to the AllianceBernstein Fourth Quarter 2019 Earnings Review. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session and I will give you instructions on how to ask questions at that time. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded and will be available for replay for one week.I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for this call, Head of Investor Relations for AB, Mr. Mark Griffin. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Jodie. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our fourth quarter 2019 earnings review. This conference call is being webcast and accompanied by a slide presentation that's posted in the Investor Relations section of our website, www.alliancebernstein.com.Seth Bernstein, our President and CEO; John Weisenseel, our CFO; and Jim Gingrich, our COO, will present our results and take questions after our prepared remarks.Some of the information we'll present today is forward-looking and subject to certain SEC rules and regulations regarding disclosure. So, I'd like to point out the safe harbor language on slide 1 of our presentation.You can also find our safe harbor language in the MD&A of our 2019 10-K, which we filed earlier this morning. Under Regulation FD, management may only address questions of material nature from the investment community in a public forum. So, please ask all such questions during this call.Now, I'll turn it over to Seth.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us today. I'm pleased to report our 2019 results reflected broad-based strength across AB. Firmwide active net inflows were $8.1 billion in the fourth quarter, bringing full-year active net inflows to $29.7 billion which translates to a 6.5% active annualized organic growth rate, our best year in more than a decade.Flows were driven by a very strong year in fixed income and continuing success with active equities, which were well-diversified across channels and region. And in an environment of declining fee rates, AB's overall portfolio fee rate remained fairly stable thanks to a favorable mix change.Now, let's get into the specifics, starting with a firmwide overview on slide 3. Annual gross sales of $103.7 billion in 2019 were up $10 billion or 11% from 2018. The retail channel was robust, reflecting high demand for global fixed income products throughout 2019.Total firmwide net inflows were $25.2 billion for the year, comprised of $29.7 billion in active net inflows and $4.5 billion in passive net outflows. Combined with strong markets and solid investment performance, our year-end assets under management of $623 billion increased 21% from the prior year. We also reported strong net inflows for January this morning, a continuation of trends we saw in 2019.Slide 4 shows our quarterly flow trend by channel. Firmwide net inflows of $6.5 billion consisted of $8.1 billion in active net inflows, partially offset by $1.6 billion of passive net outflows. Net inflows were positive for the sixth consecutive quarter, driven by healthy retail and solid institutional results, while private wealth flows were essentially flat.In retail, gross sales of $18.9 billion were the second highest in our retail history, eclipsed only by the prior quarter. And retail net inflows of $5.2 billion exceeded $5 billion for the fourth consecutive quarter.In…

Thank you, Seth. Let's start with the GAAP income statement on slide 15. Fourth-quarter GAAP net revenues of $987 million increased 23% from the prior-year period. Operating income of $268 million increased 35% and the 26.4% operating margin increased by 140 basis points. GAAP EPU of $0.84 compared to $0.63 in the fourth-quarter of 2018.As always, I'll focus my remarks from here on our adjusted results, which removes the effect of certain items that are not considered part of our core operating business.We base our distribution to unitholders upon our adjusted results, which we provide in addition to, and not as substitutes for, our GAAP results. Our standard GAAP reporting and a reconciliation of GAAP to adjusted results are in our presentations appendix, press release and 10-K.Our adjusted financial highlights are included on slides 16. Fourth-quarter revenues of $817 million, operating income of $264 million and our margin of 32.3% all increased year-on-year.We earned and will distribute to our unitholders $0.85 per unit compared to $0.64 for last year's fourth quarter. Higher base and performance fees, combined with flat promotion and servicing expenses, primarily drove the stronger results.For the year, revenues decreased by $10 million to $2.9 billion. Operating income decreased by $50 million to $802 million. And operating margin decreased by 160 basis points to 27.5%. Adjusted EPU decreased to $2.52 from the prior year's $2.67. Lower performance fees, Bernstein Research service revenues combined with higher G&A expenses were the primary drivers of the weaker results. We delve into these items in more detail on our adjusted income statement on slide 17.Beginning with revenues. Net revenues increased 17% for the fourth quarter, but were relatively flat for the full year versus the same prior-year periods. Base fees increased 15% for the fourth quarter and 5% for the full year…

[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Dan Fannon of Jefferies. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. This is actually James Steele filling in for Dan. So, my question is on the comp ratio. I'm just curious as to what might drag this kind of toward the high end or above your range. I guess we would've expected it might have come in a bit higher just given where performance fees were this quarter.

This is John. In terms of where we came in for the fourth quarter, we were able to leverage that down with the increased rise in the market. And then also, as we got into the fourth quarter, we true-up our compensation requirements on an individual basis for each SPU. So, that allowed us to actually bring the ratio down.Starting off for the year, again, we're going to start at 48.5%, which is actually a full percentage point lower than where we had started a year ago and it's really function of where we're starting off with the AUM. Our AUM starting this year is about $110 billion higher than where we had ended the prior year and that's translating into much higher base fees, much higher revenue and allowing us to leverage that comp ratio down.

Got it. And then, secondly, just on AXA mandate termination. Just curious on, I guess, where those assets are going, if you know why it was terminated? And then, if you just kind of help us where those assets currently sit. Is it taxable fixed income or [indiscernible]?

Yeah. As you may or may not know, AXA has its own in-house money manager, AXA investment managers, and our understanding they will move that in-house. It was all taxable fixed income.

Operator, we can move to the next question please.

Your next question comes from the line of Mike Carrier of Bank of America. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Good morning. And thanks for taking the questions. Overall, just on the flow side, you guys pointed out the flows are strong, both on the retail and institutional side and the pipelines looks good. I guess, just one follow-up on the AXA. Just given maybe their relationship or you guys' relationship with them and what remains, I guess, there, like more of the assets that potentially go in-house or was this sort of a one-off? I know the fees are low, but just so we kind of can gauge what that relationship is going forward.

Mike, it's Seth. Thanks for the question. As we've discussed in the past, ultimately, AXA having sold out its ownership stake would over time, we thought, move to more of an arm's length business partnership. And while we have continued to enjoy inflows and specific strategies with them in 2019, we knew that it was a potential possibility that they would begin to bring assets in-house, which they decided to do. We don't know what their long-term plans will be. But as I said to you earlier, I think it'll move to be more of an arm's-length relationship. So, they're pleased with the overall level and service performance that we are providing today.

And, Mike, it's John. Just to add to add to Seth's comments, we've looked at the total combined AXA and equitable relationship and we've disclosed that it's roughly 25% of our total AUM, about 5% of our fees. But when you break that down, the equitable piece now is much larger than the AXA piece, both in terms of assets under management as well as the revenues that are derived from those assets.

Got it, okay. That's helpful. And then maybe just one more on expenses and margins, I think this is a while back, but you guys, I think, had a 2020 margin kind of range. I think it was around that 30% and then you've got kind of the Nashville efficiencies that you will come in over the next couple of years. Just maybe bigger picture, just given what you're seeing in terms of the momentum on the flows and even the fee rates and where you're investing and where you think you can get some incremental operating leverage, how are you thinking about maybe hit a margin over the next few years based on the core business plus with the natural synergies coming into play?

So, Mike, it's John again. Again, we were still committed to the 30% margin and we're going to definitely get there. We just don't think it's likely in 2020 unless we get markets like we had last year. And if we had markets like we had last year, we'll definitely be there. But the markets were much more of a driver than the flows in terms of bringing up the AUM and the bass fees and the performance fees as well. So, we're still targeting that 30%. We're going to get there. Again, if we get really strong markets in 2020, we could potentially get there, but we just don't think it's likely.

I guess what I would say also is, look, nobody's happy with 27.5% margin. We think the margins can be higher. And we've always talked about a 50% incremental margin as we can drive revenue and we remain committed to that. So, as John is saying, to the extent that we can see higher revenues, that's the easiest path to get to a higher margin level, be it 30% or higher.

All right. Thanks a lot.

Our next question comes from the line of Alex Blostein of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. Thanks, guys, for taking the question. Seth, a little bit of a bigger picture question for you. So, when we take a step back, AllianceBernstein has been one of the best flowing asset managers in the space with pretty attractive fee rates. So, one could argue that your organic fee growth is top decile. Yet, when you look at the valuation, stock has been sort of stuck here at around 11 times earnings. So, anything you guys could do to help unlock shareholder value given the strong top line growth?

God, that's what we were already trying to do through the results we're generating. Look, I don't think there are obvious levers for us to pull that we aren't pulling today. We have been proactive in addressing what we think is a structural cost challenge in the long-only industry by trying to utilize technology to automate lots of processes. And I think more importantly in the short term, relocating our headquarters to Nashville. I think those were important steps that are still in execution and people are working very hard to achieve our objectives there.But, Alex, from our perspective, we think we're doing what we're supposed to do. We're focusing on blocking and tackling, focusing on finding new teams that can help supplement the suite of strategies we currently field and continuing to retain and attract really talented people. Beyond that, I think there's not a lot we can do.

Yeah. That was kind of the point, sorry, of the question. It didn't come out that way. You guys are executing on the initiatives that you outlined. It's just not resonating in much of a multiple improvement and it feels like a lot of it ultimately has to do with the structure with the K1 and, obviously, the ownership. So, any updated thoughts around – I guess on that front would be helpful.

Alex, it's John. I think in terms of – when you look at the folks that have converted, the alt managers and you look at us, we're very different, right? So, our trading market cap is about $3 billion. And of that $3 billion, roughly a third of that is held with employees and directors. So, it just doesn't trade that much. Some of the other folks that have converted their trading market caps are going from $12 billion up to $80 billion. They are trading several million shares a day. We're trading 300,0000. We're controlled. We have a controlling parent that has an economic interest of 65%. So, much different than the other folks. And so, it's not clear to me that a conversion actually helps our unitholders from that perspective and there is incredible tax leakage involved in something like that.And then also too, with an election coming up, once you convert, you can't go back. And last time I checked, I think it's all of the Democratic candidates are calling for increased corporate taxes. So, I just don't think this is something that makes sense for us.

Got it. All right. Fair enough. My second question is around the expenses. I think you guys talked about the margins overall, but help maybe dissect what's going on in G&A. You gave a couple of bullet points on – kind of core G&A growth, I think, was around 4% for 2019 when you ex out some of the errors and the FX dynamics. But as you're looking out into 2020, what's sort of a reasonable G&A growth and off of what base you would be, I guess, considering that?

Yeah. No, I think again off the current base, when you strip out those items I mentioned, we would be looking to grow at around the rate of inflation. So, I think we're talking 2% to 3%. And that growth in the G&A I think, going forward, is primarily driven by many of our technology initiatives that we're investing in technology across multiple business lines that we have, both for the client experience as well as for the manager to give them better tools to do their jobs.

Great. Perfect. Thanks very much.

Our next question comes from the line of Bill Katz of Citi. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Okay. Thanks. Most of my questions have been asked. I guess maybe just one performance fees. Could you give us a sense of where you are in terms of performance fee eligible AUM, how it may have changed year-on-year and then how to think about any of the seasonable locks as we think about 2020?

I think it's just over 5% of our total assets now are performance fee based. The biggest part of that is in the private wealth business, which is about 9%, and then institutional about 8% and retail is very small. But that's where we are. It's been slowly creeping up. We are seeing some on the institutional side, some of the recent equity mandates are coming in with perhaps a bit lower [indiscernible], but also include a performance fee as well. So, we are seeing on the institutional side more interest in performance fees. We're also seeing more interest as well as on the private wealth side as well. But it's slowly creeping up.

Okay. And just as a follow-up just within the other bucket. Could you maybe talk a little bit about your opportunities to sort of seed for growth in the alternative segment as we look out to 2020 and beyond?

We continue to focus on private alternatives, in particular, Bill. And so, we are continuing to uncover teams where we think they have really a compelling investment proposition and a proven track record who we think we can get to scale fairly quickly. That's our appeal to them. And we have nothing to report at the moment, but there are ongoing discussions. And our goal was to add additional teams this year and each year going forward.

And I would just add within our existing suite of services, the flows remain quite robust, Bill.

Okay, thank you.

And our next question comes from the line of Robert Lee of KBW. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Great, thank you. Good morning, everyone. Maybe following up to Bill's question a little bit on the alternatives. I'm just kind of curious. I guess a lot of your alternatives business, as you point out, comes from the private wealth segment, but can you talk a little bit about maybe what success or what you're seeing in broadening your alternatives distribution, the institutional channels, kind of what proportion of your new business is coming from outside private wealth and some of your initiatives there?

Let me start, but I'm going to actually defer to Jim later on. He may have something to add here. But for the private credit strategies, whether it's commercial real estate debt or a middle market lending, I believe a preponderance of their flows are coming now from institutional clients. And we've seen particular interest among insurers both here in the United States, but also outside the US for those assets and they continue to be interested in different strategies that we're developing within those groups. Jim, do you have anything to add?

Yeah. I guess I would say a couple of things. One is that in our wealth management business, our clients remain under-exposed to alternative. So, it remains an essential part of our strategy to expand our wealth management business as well as in terms of attracting new clients as well as additional penetration within the client base that exists today.As Seth said, whether or not we're talking about Arya, which is our multi PM long/short strategy, our securitized fund, our middle market lending capabilities or our commercial lending capabilities in the real estate space, all of those are experiencing very nice growth in institutional.And I guess, I would add, we also think there's opportunity in traditional retail space for those types of strategies as well. So, as I indicated earlier, we're pretty excited about the opportunities we have within the set of services that we have today as well as our ability to add new services and scale them over time.

Thanks. So, maybe sticking with the private wealth channel, I think, Seth, you've mentioned 6% was kind of towards the high end of your expectations for advisor headcount. But can you maybe update us on kind of what you're thinking of that channel for advisor growth over the coming years and maybe any current plans to go back to expanding the footprint somewhat or is it kind of just fill in with the existing footprint?

We think we have an enormous opportunity within our existing footprint to expand beyond where we currently stand today, Bill. We think we're underpenetrated in a number of cities outside of New York that we've grown in. We just opened in Nashville, as you know, and we continue to see real interesting activity there as well as in our other offices. But with respect to the headcount we're looking for, we're hoping to see 5-odd-percent kind of growth rate year-over-year there. We think that's about as fast as we can manage to grow organically, just given the commitment to education we make on each new financial advisor that we bring in.

I guess I'd also say we remain very focused on growing the productivity of the advisors that we have in place. And as outlined in the presentation, our track record is pretty strong there, but we still think we have real opportunities for that to continue.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

There are no further questions at this time. Mr. Griffin, I turn the call back over to you.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for participating in our conference call. Feel free to contact Investor Relations with any further questions. Have a great day.