Thank you for standing-by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Brookfield Asset Management 2015 Fourth Quarter and Year End Results Conference Call. As a reminder all participants are in listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Andrew Willis, Senior Vice President of Communications. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good morning. Welcome to Brookfield’s fourth quarter webcast and conference call. On the call today are Bruce Flatt, our Chief Executive Officer; and Brian Lawson, our Chief Financial Officer. Brian will start this morning discussing the highlights of our financial and operating results in 2015. Bruce will then talk about our market outlook and Brookfield’s priorities for the coming year. After our formal comments, we will turn the call over to the operator and take your questions. In order to accommodate all those who want to ask questions, we ask that you refrain from asking multiple questions at one time, in order to provide an opportunity for others in the queue. We will be happy to respond to additional questions later in the call, as time permits. At this time, I would remind you that in responding to questions and in talking about new initiatives and our financial and operating performance, we may make forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks, and future results may differ materially. For further information, I would encourage you to review our Annual Information Form and our Annual Report, both of which are available on our website. Thank you. And I’ll now turn the call over to Brian.

Thanks, Andy, good morning. We had a good year across all our businesses in 2015 and we are off to a strong start for this year with major growth initiatives underway across the company. During 2015, we raised $17 billion of fee-bearing capital, bringing our total to the $100 billion level. We committed over $20 billion of capital to new investments. And we continue to harvest mature investments at attractive valuations, allowing us to return capital to clients and reinvest in higher yielding opportunities for the future. Our funds from operations or FFO, increased by 18% last year to $2.6 billion or $2.49 per share, breaking this down, FFO included the following: fee-related earnings and carry of $551 million that’s up 45% over 2014. FFO from invested capital, which stood at $1.2 billion similar to the level earned last year as strong performance in many of our businesses offset headwinds in some of the others. And $842 million of realized disposition gains as we took advantage of strong demand for real assets to lock in gains and free up capital for investment. Consolidated net income for the year was $4.7 billion or $2.26 per Brookfield share and included a healthy amount of valuation gains on our property portfolio, although not quite to the same extent as we saw in 2014. So turning to our asset management results, fee revenues increased to $943 million, that’s 24% increase. That was due in turn to fees on new private fund capital raised during the year, as well as expansion in the capital basis of our listed partnerships. Over the past decade we’ve built a global asset management business, and the strength of this shows our ability to raise capital from both private and public markets. Our private funds listed partnerships and public security…

Thank you, Brian and good morning everyone. Today I’ll cover four topics, the first is fund raising; second, investment opportunity; third, our views on markets and fourth, I’ll make some comments on our balance sheets and capital recycling. As always, afterward we welcome your questions on the phone. Starting with fund raising, our institutional and sovereign fund partners continue to increase their allocation to real assets. We’re completing the marketing of two of our flagship funds just now, which will close in the first quarter, with approximately $12 billion of commitments. We also expect to complete the first close of one of our other flagship funds at upwards of $10 billion in the first half of the year. With each of the funds at least 50% larger than their respective predecessor. This sets us up well for continued growth in the business. To answer the question, many have asked us, we continue to see very strong allocations from institutional clients for real assets from every market in the world, some with large increases to the sector. Based on our pipeline, we should be able to complete fundraising in 2016 for all of our new flagship fundraised capital for a number of other investments from our institutional partners and advanced fundraising for a number of other funds. Our private fundraising capacity continues to strengthen with our institutional relationships deepening. Increasingly, we’re offering our largest partners of range of products, which include their participation in our funds, but also for many co-investments and transactions with us and direct investment alongside our listed partnerships. Examples of recent co-investments and direct investments are Isagen in Columbia, our Canary Wharf investment in London, other London and Australian and U.S. office properties, and more recently an office retail complex in Europe. This integrated approach which often…

We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your first question is from Bert Powell of BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Bruce, with fund raising or what you’re in the market with today looking like it’s going to be completed mid-2016, how soon can you turn around and launch new funds, or what are the gating issues around that from a legal perspective? And also just maybe around demand to start going again right after you’ve finished?

So, hi Bret, it’s Brian, I’ll just start off and then Bruce will follow-up as necessary. So, just in general the way it works is, you raise the money, there’s a three-year investment period that you deploy the capital in. And once you get to the 75% or 80% level, then it is permissible to go and begin raising your next fund at that stage. Obviously, you want to be largely – and your investors want to see you largely investing that current fund until you move on to the next one. So, that’s the legality or the operational side of it.

And I think our real estate fund is probably, usually before for closing of a fond we’re normally 30% to 40% invested within a fund. So it takes time to close a fund as you’ve started and you’re already investing the capital during that period. So usually you start a new fund probably a year after the closing of prior fund, because you’ve already had a year of investing usually in that.

And Bruce what about other strategies, I think you’ve ceded on the hedge fund side, and I guess private equity, are you free to start looking at fundraising on for those kinds of strategies?

Yes. So, our – we continue to create products where we see we have a competitive advantage and we can bring our clients into them so we created a number of debt products and will create more within either our real estate infrastructure business, where we have a hedge fund or we’ve been buying distressed and high yield bonds. And we’ll continue to increase the size of that. And where we see opportunities, we’ll continue to create funds for strategies. In addition to that, as you know we have a lot of core product that on our balance sheets and we continue to bring our investment clients into core properties and other infrastructure assets with us.

Okay, that’s great. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

The next question is from Brendan Maiorana of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Thanks good morning. So Bruce, I understand it makes perfect sense about kind of the asset recycling, given where equity prices are now would be challenging for the listed subsidiaries to raise capital. But it seems like given how much success there’s been in terms of the capital raising from your institutional partners that there’s a lot of investment that the institutional partners are likely to do that you’re going to do on their behalf. And do you have enough scale in the listed partnerships to be able to monetize assets, to be able to invest alongside those institutional partners? Or is this something where maybe really the size of investments, the percentage that Brookfield has had alongside its institutional partners is going to drop really meaningfully over the next few years.

Yes. Hi, Brendon, it’s Brian. So when we setup each fund we have the point you’re making very much in mind, that we get the right kind of, as you know, it’s really trying to balance out the investment opportunity set, the availability and demand from institutional clients, as well as what is the right amount of investment to be made over the next few years from the listed partnership. And I think one of the things you’re seeing and Bruce alluded to this in his comments, stated this in his comments, is having that flexibility to when it’s appropriate and you can do it on accretive basis, go raise the listed capital from the listed capital from the public markets for the listed partnership. But what you’ve also seen us do over the past number of years and we see excellent opportunity to continue to be doing this, is harvest and monetize assets directly off of the listed partnership balance sheets, as well. And so that gives us the ability, the flexibility to find the right and really, I’d say almost are between public and private opportunities to raise capital. And then finally, what we are seeing as the funds mature and we begin to approach the monetization periods, harvesting periods reaching the funds a significant capital flows coming back to us from those funds. So there are number of different avenues to source that capital, so that the listed partnerships can be continuously redeploying and recycling capital to up the returns.

Brendan, I was just going to add. I’d maybe just add to it that there’s no doubt that and I made everything clear in the comments, I made. But what we’ve been doing is, decreasing the percentage of the funds that we have as they get larger. So our quantum of dollars is still quite significant, but the number, just because the size of the funds are getting to $8 billion $10 billion, $15 billion the percentage is coming down. And therefore, there’s less pressure on those companies if you’re making very large commitments. In addition to that and I guess it’s just important to note that we have – we keep the liquid balance sheet up top in Brookfield Asset Management and such that, if we ever needed to fund commitments like that, we could always take part of the commitment in them and then either keep it or feed it off to institutional clients, other institutional clients over time. So there’s lots of flexibility on our balance sheet and that’s why we keep them pretty flexible.

And maybe just as a follow-up, I mean is the percentage decrease, I think a lot of the pitch that you guys made and were successful and have been successful that was your capital is going to be invested alongside of these institutional partners. And I think typically you guys had been the biggest investor in a given fund or strategy. Is the decrease in percentage terms, I mean, is that – is this something like 25% down 10% or is it you’re still probably the biggest individual investor in kind of each of the strategies, as you’re laying out?

So in our flagship funds, we used to be as you know when we had the earlier series we were a 100% of the money. We were then 75%, then we were 50%, there’s no fund, where we’re under 25% of the money. But the quantum’s of dollars are becoming very significant. So when you have a $15 billion fund and you are 25% of it, its $3.25 billion. And that’s a lot of money. And we don’t have a client that has that much money in a fund, in one specific fund. And I don’t think you’ll probably ever see a client with that much money in one single fund. So I think our story holds very true and we did not have any issues with our clients. It’s just because the quantum’s gets a large.

Yes, understood. Okay thanks guys.

Welcome.

The next question is from Alex Avery of CIVC. Please go ahead.

Thank you, just reflecting on all of the volatility that we’re seeing in a lot of different markets around the world, I know you guys have a very long-term view. But can you talk about any, I guess different investments, types or geographies have been changing in relative appeal, in the last, say six months?

Yes, I would just say that the same themes exist today as they had over the past few years, except they’re much more significantly accentuated today. And probably the biggest one that has changed is the oil and gas markets, as you know, everyone knows, have deteriorated very significantly in the last six months and that’s caused a lot of stress in a number of areas, and commodity prices have changed a lot. And those two areas are increasingly generating opportunities in, around the pipeline area in the infrastructure area, and other different things. So, I say that’s probably the largest one. And secondly, I’d say there’s – because of the selloff in the stock markets, there’s a lot more opportunities we’re seeing in selloff in stock markets and bond markets. There’s a lot more opportunities we’re seeing in the listed markets than what we would have seen 18 months ago. And those are probably the two biggest changes.

Okay. And then you have talked a lot over the past few years about investing in infrastructure around commodities. Given the, I guess the severity of the commodity price weakness and the fairly extended period over which we’ve seen very depressed pricing, can you just talk about counter-party risk exposure and how you manage that?

Yes. I would just say we’re in a – the infrastructure business and the real estate business are really just, you own tangible real assets and you rent them to people, and credit party consideration is really what we do for a living. So we spend a lot of time thinking about who our tenants are in a retail mall and office building pipeline, railroad or any other thing that we rent people. And we don’t think we have significant exposure to anything that’s going to bother us around the hedges, obviously we do. But, as you are around these type of things, but not very much. And so we don’t foresee a lot of issues.

Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you.

The next question is from Andrew Kuske of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Thank you, good morning. I think, Bruce, you made a comment about a lot of focus on the U.S. high-yield market and obviously this piggybacks on some of the earlier questions that one of the biggest issuer groups in that is energy. And so, when you look at that vertical, is it the combination of a lot of high-yield access in the past, capital models, that your business models would generally require a lot of capital market access and then just the way spreads have blown out really combining to a good perspective investment environment for you, both on in the paper and then possibly distress situations.

Yes, I would just say that the high-yield markets, a number of them are in energy, but all the other high-yield markets are pretty significant and everything in the high-yield market has gapped out as you likely know, and then a lot of the things that we are looking at aren’t energy related. There is no doubt some of them are around the edge – around the energy area, but not specifically oil and gas opportunities. But there’s – I think those will come as well overtime, but it may still be a little early.

And then just further in the discussion, are there – is it just easier for you to have a good view on potential distress situations or high-yield within the U.S. market given the fact that it’s largely a public traded market? And then how do you compare that to what’s happening in Europe or is it still largely a bank driven lending market?

Yes. The thing I would say is, there are opportunities around the world. They come in different forms in different places in different types. What the U.S. capital market has versus every where else, is the widest and deepest market. And secondly, most of its credit is listed in trades with CUSIP number. And therefore you can buy it in the second-hand market easily as opposed to as you mentioned in Europe, it’s mostly in a bank market. So they’re just much more accessible opportunities in the short-term versus some opportunities you might otherwise find from a banker something else in Europe. They are just more difficult to access.

Okay. Thank you.

The next question is from Cherilyn Radbourne from TD Securities. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, and good morning. So the disconnect between public market values and credit market values has been the theme on the conference calls for all of your listed issuers. And I notice that you have been buying back stocks. So I did want to ask the question as to how you will evaluate the attractiveness of buying back your own stock versus pursuing new investment opportunities here.

Yes, Cherilyn, I just say that we are in the business of capital allocation and we constantly look at stock prices versus opportunities to buy or to invest capital into other things. And bottom-line, if you can find a additive opportunity in a business which is beside a business that you have or combined something into a business you have, usually that’s better than putting money into buying your own stock back. You get a one-time change when you buy stock back, but you can multiply it if you can have a highly additive to an operating business that you run. So first place to look is, trying to add to the businesses, but when we see opportunities to buy capital back, we tend to do it and it’s easy money in doing that and it’s simple. And when it gets – when it gaps out to a level where it’s much more significant than just smaller amounts, we generally do it.

Okay. And then if I look back over the last 12 months, one of the larger drags that you had to overcome has been poor hydrology in the power business. So wonder if you could just comment on how confident you are that that business is positioned for a better 2016 from a hydrology standpoint?

There is a lot of things that Brian and I can promise you, we can’t promise you that there’s going to be rain. But it appears that hydrology levels in Brazil, we have three main hydro businesses, one in Canada, one in U.S. and one in Brazil. It appears that hydrology levels – water levels in Brazil are getting much, much better. There was a drought for two years straight in Brazil. Reservoir levels have been coming up very significantly, they doubled in the last three months. And they continue to increase and it’s raining in Brazil and that’s a very good thing for the country in general, and for our water business there. So I would say that the. Brazil component, the business looks much, much better. In North America, it has been – had low water levels and we are back at average today. And maybe a little bit better than that, although we won’t count that yet. And I would just say that we think based on all aspects, all knowledge we have today about water levels and where we sit for the year, the 2016 should be a pretty good year.

Great. That’s my two, thank you.

You’re welcome.

[Operator Instructions] The next question is from Mario Saric of Scotia Bank. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. I want to come back to the kind of shifting co-investment philosophy as the private fund gets bigger in size. And historically, prefilled kind of stood out in terms of the co-investment percentage and whether 25% to 40% much larger than some of your peers. Now clearly you have strong operational expertise in the various funds, and the returns have also been good. Going back from an LP perspective in the private funds, how much of a competitive advantage was it to see Brookfield at 40% versus your peers at 10%, when they’re starting to give you money as opposed to someone else?

So, I think our – I think there’s sort of two questions there, and I’ll try to answer both of them. I think our commitment to the funds is a very important factor when we sit with investment committees. And I’d say more important from the corporate perspective of Brookfield Asset Management, the culture of our organization has been built on that and I think it’s a very important factor in it and that pervades all the dealings we have with our clients. So, I think it’s important. And the size whether it’s 25% or 40% the numbers are large, I don’t think it changes anything. From a co-investments and direct investments we do with clients, I’ll break our clients out into two general groups and there’s smaller institutions who look for us to invest their money in funds, because they don’t have large scale organizations to do what we do. And as a result of that we take their money put in our funds, we put it to work, and we try to earn them as high return as possible, given the strategy. The second group are midsize to large are funds that actually have more people and they built organizations and sometimes they do things on their own, but often they look to people like us to put their money to work. And what’s important for them is that they come into our funds, but we also can offer them other investments. And sometimes for the larger ones those are co-investments that side us in deals. So, it’s too big a fund, we take some may be in our listed partnership around balance sheet, but we also offer some to them, as co-investors into a specific opportunity. And secondly, and maybe more uniquely to us often people do that. But secondly and more uniquely to us is we do many things on our own balance sheet that don’t fit the mandates of the funds. And increasingly we do every one of those opportunities with our institutional clients as partners. So they’re getting opportunity to directly invest into opportunities with us on a percentage basis. And that’s very important to some of them. And those three things together, just give us a greater ability to interact with the institutional clients and to assist them achieve their goals and every time we can do that, they come back another time. And that accrues to the good of our franchise.

Okay. I can appreciate that. I guess, is it reasonable to say, I guess in the near-term Cherilyn talked about the disconnect between public and private market valuations and its pretty pervasive across most real asset classes today. Clearly it’s not impacting your near-term fundraising capabilities with the discussion of a $10 billion plus infrastructure fund going forward. But over the longer term the maintenance of those types of discounts to NAV underlying sublevels does that impair fundraising ability over the long-term, after you sold the bunch of assets and the underlying funds in one time [ph]?

Yes, I would say, I would respond the following: I don’t think it does and I think where – there is enormous change going on in the institutional client world. Driven by the fact that interest rates have come down dramatically over the last number of years and they need to earn yield within their funds. And the percentage allocations to real assets hasn’t even started to go to the percentages which most of them want. And as a result of that probably the most important thing is that they still, most institutions are still far underweighted to their percentages of real assets, real estate infrastructure and other real assets. And therefore even if the funds come down in total size because equities went down, even if there some of the funds take money out of their pools or they get smaller. They’re still going to be allocating percentages to real assets. And we’ve seen very little change over the last year in that movement. And in fact, there are parts of the world where we think the allocation percentages are only starting. And Asia would be one of those they are very under-allocated to these type of products and as the insurance business in China, for example, grows over the next 25 years. There will be very significant percentages allocated to these types of assets and some of it will be global not just in the local market. So I think it’s going to continue despite what the comments that the environment that you suggested.

And I guess given those rising allocations to assets across many geographies are you seeing any shift at all with respect to your discussions with sovereigns or other institutions in terms of potentially investing directly in publicly traded securities as opposed to providing capital for your private fund. So for example, BPY is trading at a very substantial discount to your IFRS NAV, sovereigns or institutions come in and get units at a 30% to a 35% discount to NAV as opposed to providing capital for private firms going forward, arguably at any of the initially particular given BPY co-invest in those future private funds you are getting exposure on both sides of the chart, we’re getting a much cheaper valuation going in? So do you see any trends on that front?

We haven’t seen anything of note today, it’s Brian, Mario, I mean obviously that’s going to happen in the secondary markets. It would be fairly unique circumstances of where and something would be clearly accretive for us to do that to treasury.

Okay

So we’re not seeing any sort of major sovereigns taking conscious and noted acquisition program of stakes – large stakes in our listed issuers.

Okay. Thank you.

The next question is from Neil Downey of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Maybe a question directed to Brian, your disclosure shows $39 billion of private funds and co-investment capital. If you were to slice that number up, say in percentages. Is it possible to give us a high-level view as to the geographic sourcing, let’s say from Asia versus the Middle East versus the Americas and any other relevant region? And I suppose the reason I ask is that oil is $30 a barrel and it used to be $100. And this capital that you have today is obviously very sticky. But how should we think about the opportunity in terms of growth in AUM for the private funds and where the capital may come from in a world of $30 oil?

Sure. So Neil, I will pick up on a comment that Bruce made earlier, but in essence – in terms of the geographic allocation of our private fund commitment, we’re still pretty heavily weighted towards North America, U.S. and Canada. And so while there is some Middle East component to that, it’s probably more in the 10% to 15% range overall, and frankly it’s continue to be a good source of funding. And we are not really seeing any abatement in that. Obviously, these things can’t play out over time, but the other point is there are a number of areas that we see large potential increases in the funds flow in our ability to access those. So we’re pretty heavily underrepresented in Europe at this stage of the game. But in particular going to Bruce’s comment on Asia, where we made some great progress, but there are tremendously large pools of capital. An increasing regulatory and other reasons, we’re seeing much more of that capital flow into funds like ours.

Okay. And one follow-up question, you made comments earlier about how the strength in the U.S. dollar has really been a headwind to the growth in the company’s U.S. dollar centric net asset value or intrinsic value. Do you have a view as to whether that big shift is largely now done. And are you doing anything proactively in support you either way with respect to your hedging or other policies?

Yes. Our view is that we’re almost through the U.S. dollar being strong. Now, it may not change a lot for the while, but you’re not going to see substantial movements in the currencies, in particular that we operate in other than the U.S. dollar. And therefore, you’re going to see – the detracting from results will be over. And you’ll not see any negative amounts going forward, after maybe the first or second quarter this year, just because a lot of it happened in the last half of last year. As a result of that view, we have been scaling out of hedges we had in many of the other currencies that we had hedged. And therefore you’ll see much more local currency exposure going forward. And in essence, what we’re doing is we’re buying those assets at this point in time and local dollars at this currency price. And because we just think it’s the right – there’s no reason to have hedges, if we view that the cycle is played out, and we don’t need the protection anymore. But it may be a while until that all plays out.

Okay. Thank you.

This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Andrew Willis for closing remarks. Please go ahead.

Thank you operator, and thank you everybody for listening. Please feel free to reach out to us, if you have any further questions. We look forward to updating you after the first quarter of 2016.

This concludes today’s conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.