Greetings and welcome to the StoneCastle Financial Third Quarter 2016 Investor Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. An interactive question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. Now, I’d like to turn the call over to your host Ms. Rachel Schatten, General Counsel of StoneCastle Financial. Thank you, you may begin.

Good afternoon. Before we begin this conference call, I’d like to remind everyone that certain statements made during the call may be considered forward-looking statements based on current management expectations that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from the results stated in or implied by these forward-looking statements. This would depend on numerous factors, such as changes in securities or financial markets or general economic conditions, the volume of sales and purchases of shares of common stock, the continuation of investment advisory, administrative and service contracts and other risks discussed from time to time in the Company’s filings with the SEC, including annual and semi-annual reports of the Company. StoneCastle Financial has based the forward-looking statements included in this presentation on information available to us as of September 30, 2016. The Company undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statement made herein. All forward-looking statements speak only as of today, November 10, 2016. Now, I will turn the call over to StoneCastle Financial’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Josh Siegel.

Thank you, Rachel. Good afternoon and welcome to StoneCastle Financial’s third quarter 2016 investor call. In addition to Rachel, joining me today is George Shilowitz, President and Pat Farrell, our Chief Financial Officer. I would like to start the call today with a review of StoneCastle Financial’s quarterly results and portfolio highlights, followed by comments on latest FDIC community banking industry report. Then I will turn the call over to Pat, who will provide you with greater detail on our financial results before I open up the call for questions. StoneCastle Financial is celebrating its third anniversary as a public company, if I sink back to Investor Meetings during the road show we talked about investing the portfolio for a long term strategy, producing a consistent and stable income stream and targeting a dividend yield of approximately 8%. And some things we would have done a little differently in hindsight but 36 months later the company is well in its way to achieving its stated objectives. StoneCastle has invested a majority of the portfolio in investment grade equivalent securities scored by Kroll, produced an estimated annualized portfolio yield of nearly 9% and delivered cumulative distributions $4.88 or approximately 20% of our initial offering price of $25 per share. This performance occurred in the interest rate environment had seen over 100 basis point decline in the 10 year treasury and with many other investors vehicles are farther adding the risk for yield. Since inception and in the current quarter I’m pleased to report that our portfolio currently has no material created issues or default. So, you will not be surprised as we report the third quarter relatively quiet quarter for the company. We reported earnings in excess of distributions and an increase in NAV. I’m pleased to report that in the…

Thank you, Josh. As I do each quarter, I will present the financials by going through the detailed components to help you understand the value of the company. The net asset value at September 30 was $21.29 per share, up $0.08 per from last quarter. The NAV for StoneCastle Financial is comprised of four components: net investment income, realized gains and losses, the change in value of the portfolios investments, and finally distributions paid during the period. Let me walk through these components. Net investment income for the quarter was $2.51 million or $0.39 per share. Net investment income reflects gross income from dividends and interest received from our portfolio investments minus operating expenses. Gross income for the third quarter was $4.25 million or $0.65 per share. Now, I would like to review the company’s operating expenses, which are comprised of advisory fees, interest expense related to our use of leverage, custodian and administration fees, legal fees and ABA fees. Operating expenses for the quarter were $1.73 or $0.27 per share. Total expenses were flat from the prior quarter. The realized gains and losses reflect securities, which was sold or called during the quarter. For the third quarter, this amounts to a gain of approximately $176,000 or slightly below $0.03 per share. The third component changes in unrealized appreciation or depreciation of the portfolio relates to how the value of the entire investment portfolio has changed from the previous quarter end to the current quarter end. For the third quarter, the market value of the portfolio increased by approximately $214,000 or slightly above $0.03 per share. As I note each quarter, the vast majority of the portfolio is independently marked from broker dealer quotes. The quarterly fair value is provided by a minimum of two quotations and is an independent…

Thank you, Pat. Now operator, we would like to open up the call for questions.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Christopher Testa from National Securities Corporation, please go ahead.

Hi good afternoon guys, thanks for taking my questions. Just looking at the origination volume relative to prepayments is it safe to say that a lot of the repayments came towards quarter and therefore kind of hindered your ability to fund the originations by the end of the quarter?

Yes that’s a fair assessment. Right now, as we’re moving into Q4, we’re feeling very good about the pipeline and our general view discuss we’ve the visibility as we will end the quarter quite strong on originations. So yes, it was really a timing issue.

Okay, great. And just kind of segway from that. Do you feel that I know you had mentioned you did $8 million or so in origination thus far in the quarter, do you think that that’s going to pick more now that the election uncertainty has finally resolved itself, so are you expecting more deal flow to be towards the end of the quarter now? Do you think banks are kind of holding back somewhat because of that?

No, I don’t think banks are holding back although who really knows, little hard to fortune the lateral thing, but no, the pace of deals even going into Q4 and things that we have in the queue it doesn’t gaited by before or after the election. Q4 is always an important period for banks they have yearend financials and regulatory reporting so they do tend to want shore up prior to yearend to do capital planning for the year. Some of them may want to close M&A transactions, reduce certain things so that their final year FY1 and call report reflects that. So I don’t know if its election related, but Q4 tends to be reasonably strong.

Got it. And what do you think quarter to-date in terms of repayment?

We haven’t any, so fingers crossed on that. If you look back historically the fourth quarter does tend to be one of the larger quarters of the year, but so far, no official notices from anyone and we hope that calendar is…

We’re not going to pick up the phone.

And has there been any further update on Chicago Shore?

They have been quite reporting their financials, regulatory order is not yet released but the numbers still look good, continues to progress latest update with the institution gives us confidence but no change in the dividend cash pay in the short term.

Got it. So just increased performance, so things are looking good operationally there?

Things are looking good operationally, one of the issues in the public order is the capital raising even they’re not below minimum and they had not yet completed that yet so would be unrealistic that the regulators with that and off the order until that done.

Right, okay, that’s all from me. Thanks for taking my questions.

[Operator Instructions] And we do have the question from Chris [indiscernible] from KBW, please go ahead.

Hi guys this is Chris filling in for Collin. I was just wondering how you guys LIBOR move maybe that just a cost of the debt facility over the course of the quarter and how you guys might do that going forward with or without rate rise in December?

Good question. Well, there is a lot going into that we’ve been electing to fund off one month LIBOR which has not been as wild or as expensive as three month LIBOR if you look at sort of the TED spread and differential between treasuries and LIBOR. LIBOR short term moves is driven more by the money market reforms and under [indiscernible] liquidity cover ratio which has driven $400 billion to $500 billion of uninsured deposit funding out of sort of the Yankee banks kind of larger banks that operate in the U.S. market and some domestic banks. Those funds came out of prime money market funds and went into treasury money market funds almost overnight, if you would have to chart that off from one of the government website it’s almost one for one inverse between the two. So that’s what driving LIBOR now. I can’t even - given the selection as to tell you what’s going to happen with interest rates as it relates to that wouldn’t even try. But right now the short end of the curve it really has moved up a bit this year but not a meaningful amount.

There was a little blip at the end of last quarter just because we’ve different tranches outstanding and depending on when those come up during the months with the one month roll. There may be a blip little bit of a couple of basis points, but that’s about it, I mean, it’s been very steady lately and I would expect it to stay there.

Okay, thanks. How often do you guys get to change or reelect one month versus three month basis?

It’s every month, so right now we’re on a one month roll so at any point we can change that and go back out to three months or two months. Right now, it’s month by month.

Great, that’s all I’ve for now. Thanks guys.

Sure, no problem.

Our next question comes from Devin Ryan from JMP Securities, please go ahead.

Good afternoon guys. Most of my questions have been asked here and maybe just one that could tough, but just trying to think kind of early reach if on election there has been a lot of talk about regulatory changes that could come for banks, Dodd Frank is getting broad up quite a bit. I’m just curious if there is anything within regulation, there is any repelling or dis-offering that you think would impact maybe the outlook for M&A in the bank or anything that could impact the outlook for M&A in the bank space that could impact the portfolio? And then just, maybe just more broadly is there anything you’re watching for in terms of kind of regulatory changes that could occur that could be good or bad for just the backdrop of financing or something else in the business?

Well, given that I’ve 48 hours to digest the attention, I’ll give you my early crystal ball. If Dodd Frank were to be repealed I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of what could or would happen. So it’s gone one front. Dodd Frank had about 660 pages rulemaking in a 2,000 page document, little more than a half now, the rulemakings have been taken. But what Dodd Frank mandated if you look through really take it or look at it is it says that regulations will be promulgated because of Dodd Frank, right. So in other word it says regulators will do this as mandated. But once it’s done and it’s now in regulations in various agencies whether it’s STAD, FDIC even if you repeal Dodd Frank that doesn’t make it go away it’s now in the rigs. You actually have to pass a new [LOTA] undo it or pull it out, and I’ve been talking to a lawyer about that in the last of days. So either at Dodd Frank it’s repealed it doesn’t mean that all of the Dodd Frank rules go away, many of them are now codified would have to be ripped out which is a much harder thing to do. It could happen but it will take much longer. The other side is, let’s say that is repealed or CFPB goes away. The general view is that we’re quite optimistic you can see that in bank’s stock this week and that would - regulations both the small and large banks together maybe large banks do get few thousand people in the compliance department I don’t know if that’s good or bad for the economy, but it just reduces a lot of burden on small banks that really will never the target of these regulations in the first place so that’s only good. And we’ve looked quite closely on what’s going on with the change in treasury and the bond market relative to stock I mean, it’s today hard to say, but Layman you would say but the temperament is that loser regulations in all kinds of industries could spread economic growth I think people are generally interpreting the stock market move on, yet they’re worried about inflation as a result of touch growth and sort of over employment that could occur whether is infrastructure building or increased manufacturing which could put wage pressure on, which then could raise short term rates and then you have a view around what goes on in. The higher rates are better for banks that’s how it has been constant. So there is just a lot of moving parts around that I don’t see anything would range bad, it’s neutral to quite good for banking if we just narrow to what’s the direct effect on banks and not the economy as a whole.

Great, that’s really helpful color just wanted some kind of early perspective from your seats, I appreciate that. And I guess there is nothing when you look at your portfolio to the extent there is a greater toleration in M&A or in terms of how, what the exposures are, is there any implications when you look at what you own - to the extent that would happen?

It’s really too dis-chunk, I mean more M&A in theory mean more capital needed for the acquisition on the other hand more economic growth that does have an effect on market. So if more people are employed then you need more ancillary businesses to put those people, smaller manufacturers supply to large manufacturers to make more things and hire more people which means those companies need more capital expenditures which means more business loans and commercial loans. So we’ve had a very tepid economic profile for a long period of time, it’s not a political comment just economic comment. So if economic growth would reoccur that could mean more lending and bank growth which means more capital need much like what we saw mid 1990s and the mid 2000s.

Great, okay, thanks Josh.

This concludes our question-and-answer session, I’d like to turn the floor back over to management for any closing comment.

Thank you, operator. Again over the last three StoneCastle Financial could not have achieved the success of our organization without your continued. So on behalf of the entire executive team and Board of Directors thank you and we wish you a very healthy and happy holiday season and we will see you in 2017.

This concludes today’s teleconference, thank you for your participation, you may disconnect your lines at this time.