Welcome to the First Quarter 2018 Earnings Call. My name is Serbia, and I will be your operator for today’s call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the call over to Alicia Charity. Alicia, you may begin.

Thank you, and good morning. Welcome to Ameriprise Financial’s first quarter earnings call. On the call with me today are Jim Cracchiolo, Chairman and CEO, and Walter Berman, our Chief Financial Officer. Following their remarks, we’ll be happy to take your questions. Turning to our earnings presentation materials that are available on our website; on Slide 2 you’ll see a discussion of forward-looking statements. Specifically during the call, you will hear reference to various non-GAAP financial measures which we believe provide insight into the company’s operations. Reconciliations of non-GAAP numbers to their respective GAAP numbers can be found in today’s materials. Some statements that we make on this call may be forward-looking, reflecting management’s expectations about future events and overall operating plans and performance. These forward-looking statements speak only as of today’s date and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. A sample list of factors and risks that could cause actual results to be materially different from forward-looking statements can be found in our first quarter 2018 earnings release, our 2017 annual report to shareholders, and our 2017 10-K report. We make no obligation to update publicly or revise these forward-looking statements. On Slide 3, you see our GAAP financial results at the top of the page for the first quarter. Below that, you see our adjusted operating results, which management believes enhances the understanding of our business by reflecting the underlying performance of our core operations and facilitates a more meaningful trend analysis. I’d like to point out that effective January 1, 2018 the company changed the naming convention for its non-GAAP financial measures from operating to adjusted operating to more clearly differentiate between GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. The definition of these measures remains unchanged. The comments that management makes on the call today will focus on adjusted operating financial results. Additionally, in the first quarter Ameriprise adopted a new accounting standard; revenue from contracts with customers on a retrospective basis. The adoption resulted in changes to certain advisory revenues that are now recognized on a gross rather than a net basis. All information discussed today reflects this restatement. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Jim.

Good morning. Thanks for joining us for our first quarter earnings call. I’ll provide my perspective on the business, and then Walter will follow with our detailed financials. Let’s begin. I’m pleased to share that Ameriprise reported strong first quarter results. We’re generating good earnings growth in both the Advice & Wealth Management and Asset Management. So far in 2018 the overall operating environment has remained positive but fluid. After a strong January, market volatility increased the markets ended down for the quarter. In March, the Fed increased short-term rates and longer term rates have begun to rise though they remain at low levels. And the regulatory environment is clearer, so we’re encouraged by that. In the first quarter we had good growth in client assets and activity. In terms of financials, assets under management and administration were $887 billion up 9%. And on adjusted operating basis, net revenues grew nicely excluding the impact of 12b-1 was 9%. We delivered significant growth in earnings up 30%. Earnings per diluted share grew a meaningful 37% and our return on equity is consistently among the best in the industry at 29.3%. Maintaining a strong financial foundation is core to how we operate and gives us flexibility to take advantage of opportunities. We return 91% of adjusted earnings in the first quarter consistent with our return over the last several years. And yesterday we announced another increase in our regular quarterly dividend up 8% to $0.90 per share. This continues our record for consistent dividend growth over the years and marks our 13th increase over the last 13 years and since 2012 we doubled our dividend. Let’s move to our business results. In Advice & Wealth Management, our advice value proposition and premium client experience are important differentiators. We work diligently to earn…

Thank you, Jim. Ameriprise delivered strong results in the quarter. We continue to make significant progress in delivering our long-term shareholder objectives with strong growth in revenue, EPS, and return on equity. Let me take you through the details beginning on Slide 6. Ameriprise reported adjusted operating EPS of $3.70, fueled by our strong growth businesses. AWM and Asset Management earnings were up over 25% in the quarter. Overall revenue growth was strong, up 9% in the quarter. Strong growth in client assets, particularly in wrap accounts, and market appreciation drove substantial 16% top line growth in AWM. Asset Management revenue was up 7% from markets and a vendor credit relating to completion of our front, middle, and back office integration. Annuities and Protection’s stable revenue was in line with our expectations. Expenses continue to be well managed across the firm with G&A up only 1%. I will go into details on expenses in each segment on the subsequent pages. We returned more than $500 million to shareholders through buyback and dividends. Given the lower share price in February and March, we increased the amount of share repurchase to the highest level over the past five quarters. Let’s turn to AWM on Slide 7. Advice & Wealth Management delivered another outstanding quarter, across all dimensions. Revenue was up 16%, driven by strong net inflows and improved transactional activity levels, as well as higher equity markets and interest rates. Expense growth was primarily driven by higher distribution related expenses. G&A increased 6% which included higher volume related impacts due to strong growth, increased investment for business growth and the addition of IPI. AWM had substantial 27% earnings growth and 230 basis points of margin expansion in the quarter. The adoption of the new accounting standard impacted margins in both periods by…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Ryan Krueger from KBW.

Hi, thanks, good morning. First question was on buyback. Walter, you mentioned that you stepped it up from the last few quarter run rate. Is this something that you think can be sustained going forward or did you view that as more of an opportunistic increase in the quarter?

It can be sustained. Again, we will evaluate it each quarter looking it opportunistically and certainly we have the capacity on that basis to continue to buyback at the levels that you saw. Again, we will evaluate it each quarter.

Okay, thanks. And then one on G&A expenses in Advice & Wealth Management, the 6% increase. How much of that was driven by IPI and, I guess, what would be your general expectation for G&A expense growth going forward?

IPI is a small part of it. It’s probably on the expense side because it’s new and it’s about $4 million. And going forward, I think as we talked about it’s in the 3% and 5% range. You do know we’re investing for growth, but certainly we feel that is a reasonable range that you should anticipate.

Okay, great, thank you.

Our next question comes from John Nadel from UBS.

Hey, good morning. First off a question on the SEC’s announcement recently regarding the fiduciary standards. Jim, any sort of early thought there, your reaction or the firm’s reaction to what’s happening now?

Yes. So first of all we’re going through the really – the details of it, there’s over a 1,000 pages. On the surface it looks very good. In a sense that it is a bit more principle based, it’s more appropriate against what would be supportable regulation that’s out there, in case that’s out there that is appropriate for us to in the industry to conduct business, but still serving people in their best interest which we fully support. So we’re very encouraged by it. There’s always you got to read the details of it and figure out how that looks in reality. But we think it is appropriate for the SEC to take the broader role and have it consistent across all activities, so we’re very favorable to that. And as you also saw there was a major court ruling there, so unless the DOL appeals it then that rule will be out.

Yes, understood. And then on the wrap flows, Jim, I mean, exceptional results, I guess the question, sort of using Ryan’s term, can we talk about the sustainability there, what you think is really driving that increase in wrap flows? I mean, I know productivity has improved, experienced financial advisors recruiting all these things, but at the core of it, do you feel like this level of flows is really a sustainable level?

Yes, I would say we feel very good about the productivity of the system and advisors. I think the focus is the back to work and they’re not worried about the next regulatory overhang that really had converted. Remember, last year we had to converted a huge amount of their business, eliminate 12b-1s, we had to put them on the best interest standard consistent with the DOL. So there was a lot of work and lot of activity and training and now the advisors are much more focused. Now what we’re doing to work at this point is we’re investing real strongly back into the core of the business, our advice value proposition, our digital capabilities, we’re enhancing our ability for our advisors to really seek out and serve more clients, and clients that have more wealth, and so we feel really good about that. Client inflows are really good, our productivity of the advisor base is strong and growing. So that’s really what we’re continuing to be focused on. Our transaction activity also has picked up in the quarter. So it wasn’t just flows into wrap, we saw a good flow situation coming in from clients. And even with the volatility people have been very disciplined, about how they’re working and engaging their clients.

And then if I can sneak one more in, just going back to Slide 12, I really appreciate the color on the long-term care business, I think that’s clearly been topical I believe. The last bullet on the slide talks about significant protections in place to effect re-mitigate counterparty risk. I guess specific to that – in the event that your counterparty suffered significant downgrades of its credit or claims paying ability. Is there protection in place against the incremental capital that river source lays would potentially need to hold against a lower rated reinsurance recoverable?

Basically the issue is, it would have to be tremendous movement and we feel with the protections that we have that we keep on talking about that the impact to us would be minimal.

Even under rating agency, capital models like S&P?

Yes. Because we are dealing with again what we feel the protections are in them and what the net exposure would than be. And it’s a complex process, but as we indicated we feel very comfortable for those protections and the net amount of that exposure we think will be certainly very manageable.

Thank you very much.

Our next question comes from Kenneth Lee from RBC Capital Markets.

Hi, thanks for taking my question. Just had one on the Asset Management side. In terms of the institutional flows, wondering if you could give us a sense of the recent trend of the unfunded institutional mandate and where they stand right now?

Yes. So we actually, again, you can’t necessarily with certainty always say exactly when, but we do have a nice number of wins that are waiting to be funded. We do believe that some of the investors held off in the first quarter and some of the disciplines that we had that were approved, and so we feel the institutional business should become much more positive than what we’ve seen in the first quarter, would have bounced back in some of those wins and fundings. We do have a good number of products that have been approved on the consultant side, and more that are in the hopper and we’re having good discussions with our clients including on some of the multi-asset solutions that we have. So we’re hoping that will continue to trend in a more positive direction as we move through the year.

Got you. And just one more follow-up. Any way that you could break out by asset class just that the total outflow; whether there was any particular concentration in specific asset classes? Thank you.

Yes. We’d love to see if we can do that for you.

Great, thanks.

Our next question comes from Adam Klauber from William Blair.

Thanks, good morning. Your revenue growth – the change in revenue growth is pretty impressive. In 2016 it was roughly negative 2%. 2017 moved up to 4%. This quarter jumped up to 8% to 9%. A revenue growth level in the high-single digit; is that sustainable or is this quarter just better than we should expect going forward?

No, again, if you look at the business drivers that they are certainly with the markets and with our growth, I can’t say there’s going to be at the same levels, but certainly with also the changing interest profile certainly it will be higher than we’ve experienced and the ones you’ve talked about and we’re quite comfortable with that. We always have been the situation from that standpoint with the insurance which grows and annuities which grow at a slow pace, but the Asset Management and Advice & Wealth Management businesses are in good trajectories. So I can’t give you, it’s going to be at that 9% level, but certainly it’s going to be higher than we are seeing.

Okay. And in the last year, so you’ve done like two more bolt-on acquisitions last deals. How’s the pipeline? And could we see one or two more deals in the next 12 to 18 months?

Yes, I think listen – I think the activity in the industry has picked up a bit and we very much have the capability and the ability to continue to bolt-on. We are seeing a nice fit with Lionstone that we acquired. And we think there are some additional capabilities that we would like to add on to our asset management capabilities.

Okay, okay. Thank you very much.

Our next question comes from John Barnidge from Sandler O’Neill

Thank you. Just a housekeeping question. In Asset Management, when we have flows on an ex-former parent company basis been this bad?

So, you meaning other than the ex-parent?

Yes.

Right. So I would say there are probably if we go back – it really depends on the cycle and unfortunately in the first quarter we were sort of hit with fundings being held, and at the same time people relocate out of some of the disciplines like high-yield and other things like that because of the market pullback and change in the fixed income area. Equity is the same way with the volatility that picked up. So Europe moved into nice inflows last year and again the first quarter it was a little bit of holding, and so you got the redemptions coming without necessarily the sales. But the sales right now are starting to pick it back up again, and the redemptions are calming again. So we did face a level of volatility in the first quarter and we also in the first quarter always have people that review their portfolios and make some reallocations which we didn’t have. So we think that will bounce back. We didn’t expect it to be that high. Having said that, I do believe we are making good focus and good progress in certain areas, but it’s not something we’re happy about, but we are diligently trying to work to improve that situation.

And then related to the Protection segment, the pricing environment for Auto & Home has improved, underwriting margins in Protection are trending in the right direction. Your ex-cat combined ratio has averaged a couple points below 100 for the last seven quarters. How much further improvement do you think is needed before the company would consider exploring strategic alternatives for that business? Because there’s obvious a clear push towards more asset management like businesses of the company.

So, again, I think we are well on our way to showing good progress in the business. I think the unfortunate point over the last number of quarters have been the level of cat activity and we’ve actually done some good work to minimize that, we’ve actually adjusted some of our affinity relationships so that we can reduce the extra exposure there. We like that to continue to work through the book because at the end of the day we’ve built this book over a long period of time, it is one of the best we think affinity, direct play is out there, and we really would like it get it back in a good situation for our partners. And once that can sustain and start to excite the growth there and then we’ll continue it, we will evaluate it, I’m very clear on that. Having said that, I think we just want to continue to make some good progress there that shows true through the earnings.

Thank you for the answers.

Our following question comes from Erik Bass from Autonomous Research.

Hi, thank you. Can you provide some additional detail on what drove the increase in your RBC ratio this quarter? I guess, what were the discretionary reserves you released related to and what’s changed in your thinking about the need for them?

Well, actually since last year I think we discussed that we had discretionary reserves as we looked at both the tax situation and others. And those reserves clearly were discretionary and they have been reversed, and obviously we also declared a dividend. So we feel comfortable at the current NAIC levels that the RBC ratios are in the level that we think are appropriate.

Okay. And then on the last call you alluded to potential interest in getting back into the banking business, can you just provide any update there on your thinking and discuss what you see I guess is the potential incremental benefits to your interest margin from owning a bank? And also I guess would having a bank change your capital requirements or have any material impact on excess capital?

Okay. Yes, we certainly continue with our interest. And as we evaluate that and we feel that is will be beneficial situation to expanding the scope of our product capabilities and will have a reasonable amount of margin as it does with certainly some of our peers. And as it relates to the capital we feel based on initial evaluation, it should have a minimal impact on the consolidated excess capital position other than the capital that goes into the institution.

Got it. So it would be both an expansion of kind of product capabilities as well as an increase in the interest margin as you would be able to keep more of the economics, I guess, particularly as rates if they continue to move higher?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Our following question comes from Suneet Kamath from Citi.

Thanks, good morning. Wanted to start with long-term care; just given your confidence in the level of reserves and frankly the lack of reserve bills on an absolute basis and relative to peers. Is there any hope that maybe at some point you could sell this business for exit it? Are there any sort of structural limitations in terms of your ability to do it or is it just boils down to price?

I think there is no structural limitations for us to do that, obviously interest rates play an important part of it, but also, yes. So the answer, if an opportunity came up, we would certainly explore it and maintain the economic sense. We understand the book, and like I said, this book is something that we feel like a lot of our products is been managed in a very effective way so that’s why we feel as confident. So yes if the opportunity came up for the right situation, and interest rates certainly would help going up, we would certainly listen.

And we’ve been reading a little bit about interest from third parties in these types of blogs. Is there anything – is it sort of cricket out there in terms of conversations or are you actually getting some feedback in terms of interest without naming specific?

I think we’ve seen more interest lately, and certainly in that blog – so, yes, I can say we’ve seen more interest.

Suneet, one of the things I would say is as there’s a lot of activity out there for books that may not have been of the quality of ours, so I think what has to occur a little more is people understanding really to differentiation and I think you’ll find whether it’s in our protection or in our annuities books. These are asset accumulation, good, strong clientele built over the decades, very good returns, very low risk, very good hedging, very good in the way we reserve et cetera. So I actually believe this is a very quality – high quality portfolio and as people start to evaluate that, there will be differentiation.

And I know, Walter, you mentioned interest rates need to be higher. Is there a rough sense of how much higher they need to go before such a transaction makes sense?

It’s an interesting question. Certainly if you look at – if you get into the 5% to 6% range or 4.5% to 5.5% you certainly get to a point where you can make an intelligent valuation around.

And that’s on the 10-year or is that something longer?

That’s in the 10 year.

Okay. And then just one last one for Jim, in the past you’ve given us sort of periodic updates on the margin in employee channel versus the franchisee channel within AWM. Can you give us a sense of where those two channels are today?

Yes. So we continue to create a margin and build it in the employee channel. It’s up in the mid-to-upper teens, I think roughly around this point, and it’s tracking very good, it’s also off a larger base, meaning that the size has grown. So we feel very good about that and the continued progress that it makes, and we’ll continue to build utilization in that system with the recruits that we’ve brought on board. So it’s tracking very well.

Suneet, this is Walter. That just make sure – I’m talking about not 10-year treasure, and I’m talking about 10-year corporates, okay?

10-year corporates. Okay that’s helpful thanks.

Our next question comes from Alex Blostein from Goldman Sachs.

Hey, Jim, Walter, good morning. Question for you guys will follow-up around the bank strategy. I guess, may be just a little more color on a, what kind of ROE threshold you guys would need to see in the business when you’re considering to kind of pull the trigger or not? And I guess would you guys have to acquire or is that something you guys can just build internally and start a new bank charter?

Yes. So, as you recollect, we had a bank charter before. We still have a trust – a bank trust charter. And so it’s really building out our capabilities, getting the approval and our licenses in place et cetera, so there’s level of working activity that you have to do appropriately in that regard. But it would really be around Wealth Management product. We’re not looking to do commercial lending like some other institutions have et cetera, et cetera. We really want this to be more around supporting our clients’ activities and their individual asset loans, et cetera, et cetera. So we have the capability in the past to have done that. We have the knowledge and so we need to put that back in place and go through the appropriate approval and set up the various systems and capabilities for it.

Yes, as it relate to the returns, certainly the book we have to build, but again it’s internally and with the product we’re building, but certainly we get into – expect to get into the teens.

Yes, any sort of timeline we should be thinking about as you guys are considering this?

Probably as we look out to next year.

Yes.

Got you. And then my second question is just around the brokerage trends and the cash. So looks like the implied betas, deposit betas on the business remain quite low, something I think in the 30-ish percent. I guess, as you progress through the rate cycle, and again, this is not just you guys are seen across the industry, but as you progress through the rate cycle, what you guys see these deposit betas go in. Again, feels like they held up much better than expected and then ultimately, I guess, where they peek out?

Again, it’s depending on the competitive situation as we go, you’re right. Certainly the level before the increases that have taken place have been at a higher level because it’s competitive and certainly it’s been evaluated. And actually a lot of that – even though one in December has not worked its way totally through the quarter. So the issue is we see it, at some point it will stop being shared, but again it’s a highly competitive situation than we’ve seen in the last two, that majority of it has been retained. So it’s tough to really estimate, but it’s certainly at some point when you get to much higher levels, I assume it will stop being distributed in a more – basically more to higher percentage clients than it is today.

Got you. But where you standing today, you’re not seeing material changes versus what we’ve seen over the last kind of three to four months?

And we stand just quite thoroughly. We are certainly marched up with our competitors and certainly look at it and we feel it’s a fair rate that we’re offering.

Got it. Great, thanks very much.

Our next question comes from Tom Gallagher from Evercore.

Thanks. Few questions on the long-term care, Walter. In terms of the reinsurance that you have in place, do you have protections over and above the assets that are currently in the reinsurance trust? I guess, what I’m getting at is, if there was a shortfall of assets in the trust and your reinsurance partner suffered further financial difficulty, do you have extra protections to fill that asset need?

Okay. The issue is – let me discuss straight to it. Our protections have geared to what they estimate reserves that are necessary for it, and we certainly work with them and understand it because we have been bonded with it, and they certainly we feel – we follow a protocol, they follow a protocol that those reserves are adequate. I’m not going to speculate, if it’s not but the – it is something we’re constantly monitoring and basically reviewing and certainly reviewing the strength of glick and the firms that supported. So I feel comfortable at this stage, it’s certainly we are well protected.

Got it. And I guess another issue that I’ve heard out there that’s a concern related to that. I just wanted to see if you could shed a little light on it is that I think your counterparty is viewed as using more aggressive reserving assumptions than everyone else in the market. And from the disclosure we’ve been able to see, it looks like you guys are holding about the same amount of reserves for that business that’s been reinsured to that company at around $2 billion. Am I right on that or is there a difference between the reserves you’re carrying for that book versus what your reinsurance partner is, if you’re able to comment on that?

Well, I can comment on ours, we do our own calculations on our reserves and certainly feel comfortable, but we’re also aware what they are doing and currently, in discussions we are not concerned.

Okay. And then my final question on this topic is, your 10-K indicated that your analysis of long-term care reflects to one or two additional rate increase rounds over a four-year period. I just want to be clear, I understand that. Is that what’s embedded in your GAAP and statutory reserves? Or one or two additional rounds of rate increases over four years? Or is that something different? I just want to be clear?

It is based on evaluation and that is what we felt is appropriate and based on what we feel that we would be able to garner.

And Walter, that’s for both GAAP and stat?

No, that was for the GAAP.

That’s just GAAP, okay. All right, thank you.

You’re welcome.

Our next question comes from Doug Mewhirter from SunTrust.

Hi, good morning. First question on the method, I know you’ve been working on the Threadneedle side, but also maybe also in your North American business have you sort of zeroed in on what kind of expense impact that might have for the balance of the year?

Well, okay, on the research fees, the unmet related to met are as we engaged is around $2.5 million that we had in the quarter so you can go out there we’re constantly looking in valuating, but that is something that we experienced that basically we had in the first quarter. We are doing some development, but again that’s in our development plan as it related to meeting certain other requirements as we go forward. But that should be, I would say $1 million or $2 million in that range as it relates to MiFID.

Okay, thanks for that and my second and final question. With the long - and middle of the long-end of the interest rate curve finally inching up a little bit. Have you seen increased interest in your annuity products, I know it looks like you had an increase in sales, I didn't know if that was just a better marketing effort or if there is or if it was more of the - more comfort with the regulatory environment or if there is some sort of – they are more attractive because of higher interest rates and do you think there’s a level where you would actually hit an inflection point where you could actually turn the negative variable annuity flows into positive flows?

So we have seen in the last two quarters a pickup in annuity sales and again I would probably say it’s a combination of factors I can’t point to one, it could be you know where people are more comfortable now that they understand what is appropriate from a regulatory, best interest, et cetera, as we said we haven’t really changed we’ve always had a very comprehensive compliance practices, nothing in that regard has changed, I think it’s more of a comfort of where the annuity fits back in, in that regard. I think there was a bit more of a focus or a little bit of a hesitation there. Having said that I also believe that the advisors are back to looking at where the annuity fits as part of a holistic solution. And in that I think is how we think about that, we have always had annuity sales in the $4 billion to $5 billion range unlike a number of competitors that really turn on the faucet and then turn it off when something happens there, we have been very consistent, we have a good core product capability and benefits that our advisors understand. We compliment that where other products from other providers on our shelf as well, so we’re not necessarily looking for sales of the annuity to rise tremendously, there is a level of redemption in our book or pay downs because of the client portfolios and drawdown, but that’s appropriate for us . We look at this more holistically and as you can see, clients - we have good client flows, we have good flows going into a combination of products, which include the wrap, includes annuity, protection, et cetera, and that’s really what we look at. We don’t necessarily look that the annuity business has to grow by leaps and bounds, I think part of the sales coming off also has to do with the fixed side, where the interest rates aren’t there at this point for us to get the spread that we’re looking for, but that could change longer term as well. So we are feeling very comfortable about that book and the sales that we do get and it does sort of go up and down within a good range, so it’s a good client persistent portfolio, and that’s really what we look for.

Okay, thank you.

And our next question comes from Humphrey Lee from Dowling & Partners.

Good morning, thank you for taking my question. On Asset Management in terms of the fee rates that you charge on the asset that is coming in versus the assets that are going out, can you update us in terms of the differential between the fee rates?

The fee rate is higher for the - certainly for the activity coming in versus going out I’m trying to remember, it’s around 4 basis point or 5 basis points I think I will get back to you on that, that’s what I think it is it’s certainly been higher.

Yes, I think in the last quarter you said it’s kind of roughly 15% higher between I mean for the inflows versus the outflow, I’m just trying to see if there’s still some what kind of in that ballpark.

That sounds a little hard to me, but let me check.

Yes, I think it was that way in the fourth quarter but again, it varies based upon what the fundings are in the redemptions, so it’s not like a perfect science.

Okay, understood. And then you talked about some of the expected funding in the coming quarters given the wins that you have, but in terms of the redemptions do you anticipate any more kind of liquidity related redemptions or kind of re-bouncing kind of in the coming quarters?

Again, you can’t speak to what was going to happen in market conditions et cetera, but we did see a bit more of that sort of rebalancing and reallocation than we’ve seen in other quarters and I think you can see that with interest rates backing up with the markets particularly in February with how the volatility spike. So I would probably say we don’t expect it to be at that level going forward. We see that sort of have calmed down tremendously as we got through March and in to April.

Okay I think the single client have the redemption for liquidity reason. They took money out last quarter – last first quarter and then some in the second quarter, would you anticipate something similar in terms of pattern?

You know that’s hard to – the client was very clear that it had nothing to do with the performance of the product et cetera, so I think those are the decisions that they have to make and we’re informed like others. So I don’t think we’re an isolated case on that hyper liquidity from the type of clients, so I think that’s more of what others have experienced as well.

So it’s Walter let me just, the fee-in versus and fee- out is about 6% higher.

Okay Thank you.

We have no further questions at this time. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating you may now disconnect.