Hello, and welcome to Citi’s third quarter 2009 earnings release with Chief Executive Officer, Vikram Pandit, and Chief Financial Officer, John Gerspach. Today’s call will be hosted by John Andrews, Head of Citi Investor Relations. We ask that you please hold all questions until the completion of the formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. Also, as a reminder, this conference is being recorded today. If you have any objection, please disconnect at this time. Mr. Andrews, you may begin.

Thank you. And good morning to everyone and thank you for joining us this morning. On the call today, our CEO, Vikram Pandit, will speak first and give a brief overview of our results, and then John Gerspach, our CFO, will take you through the earnings presentation, which is now available for download on our website, citigroup.com. Afterwards, Vikram and John would be happy to take your questions. Before we get started, I would like to remind you that today’s presentation may contain forward-looking statements. Citi’s financial results may differ materially from these statements. So please refer to our SEC filings for a description of the factors that could cause our actual results to differ from expectations. With that said, let me turn you over to Vikram. Vikram?

John, thank you very much. And good morning, everybody. As you know, for the past 18 months, we have been steadily executing our plan to build financial strengths and to return Citi to sustain profitability. And we have actually made very good progress on that each quarter. And this is an important quarter for us because it reflects many of the steps we have taken to build the foundation for our future growth. Our balance sheet has been meaningfully strengthened. Our Tangible Common Equity is now over $100 billion. And our Tier 1 ratio of 12.7% was stable versus the last quarter. Today, our tangible book value grew to $4.47 per share. We have over $36 billion in loan loss reserves, and we are operating with much higher liquidity. We ended the quarter with $244 billion in cash and equivalence, which is 70% higher than a year ago. So, not only have we meaningfully improved the financial strength of the company, but our underlying franchise remains strong. We had record revenues in our Institutional Clients Group business this year that reflects not only a favorable environment, but it also reflects a significant restructuring of our Securities and Banking business and the fact that our people that worked very hard to support our clients. We had a strong third quarter in Securities and Banking. Ex-CVA, our revenues were up more than 40% versus a year ago, and sequentially we had strong customer activity, but our revenues were down versus a very strong first half. In GTS, momentum continues to be good. We grew our average deposits and liabilities by $26 billion. And we have been operating add-on year record net income levels. In Citicorp’s consumer banking businesses, we had good deposit growth this quarter. And while credit costs remain elevated in…

Thank you, Vikram. And good morning, everyone. Before we go into the quarter in more detail, I wanted to highlight three significant items, which are reflected in our third quarter results. First, we had a negative CVA of $1.7 billion in Securities and Banking, driven by tightening in our own credit spreads. Second, we recorded positive net revenue marks of $1.5 billion in Citi Holdings. And finally, we recorded a $1.4 billion pretax gain in the Corporate/Other segment related to our exchange offers. Now turning to our consolidated results on slide three, we reported revenues of $20.4 billion, up 25% year-over-year. As I just mentioned, this included the $1.4 billion gain related to the exchange offers. While provisions for credit losses, claims and benefits remained flat versus the prior year at $9.1 billion, the composition has changed significantly. This quarter, our credit costs were largely driven by net credit losses of $8 billion. In the prior year quarter, credit costs were split roughly evenly between net credit losses and additions to our loan loss reserves. Expenses of $11.8 billion were down 16% versus last year. This resulted in a pretax loss from continuing operations of $529 million, but net income of $101 million due to a $1.1 billion benefit from taxes. The tax provision benefit reflected a higher proportion of income earned and indefinitely reinvested in countries with relatively lower tax rates, as well as a higher proportion of income from tax advantage sources. Slide four walks through our EPS calculation. Starting at the top of the slide, we show net income of $101 million or $0.01 per share for the quarter. As I mentioned, this includes a $1.4 billion pretax or $851 million after-tax benefit from the exchange offers. This gain translates into a $0.07 benefit to net income…

(Operator instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Glenn Schorr with UBS. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Hi, thanks very much. Could you provide us with (inaudible) maybe contribution for this quarter and last so we can kind of adjust our expectations on the go-forward?

In both quarters, I think Fibro [ph] is basically somewhere between $90 million and $100 million of revenues. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Really? Okay. I was expecting a little higher.

I’m sorry. It’s net of pretax income. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Okay. Makes more sense, okay. I’m sure I know the answer, but in the special asset pool marks, mostly that is just unrealized on just improved market conditions, correct? And most -- all of that is on the assets that are obviously not in held-to-maturity?

The marks are not in the held-to-maturity assets. That is correct. And they reflect the change in marks on obviously on the assets that we have, the mark-to-market. We’ve laid out the details for you on page 36 in the appendix. Glenn Schorr – UBS: I have gone through. I’d just want to make sure that they weren’t sales. In other words, traditions are good, but they are not that good.

The information that we include here are changes in the marks. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Okay. And then a similar enough question, in the $32 billion decline in assets within holdings, I think there is a natural burn-down of, quote, “$15 billion to $20 billion in runoff.” But I didn’t know if this quarter had a little extra runoff or there were actual sales out of holdings?

Well, as Vikram mentioned in his opening, we actually sold $19 billion -- I'm sorry, we reduced the special asset pool assets by $19 billion. And most of that was actually accomplished through sales. The sales were roughly two-thirds of the $19 billion. So it’s a combination vote of natural runoff, as you mentioned, Glenn, plus we are selling. Even on the -- what you will see is that even though we took a markup in the subprime CDOs, and that’s again laid out on page 36 of roughly $2 billion, our exposure to those subprime CDOs stayed flat during the quarter because we also sold certain of the CDO positions. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Okay. And then you had mentioned in your remarks that that’s how you continue the issue outside the government guarantee, and I saw there are -- it seems like you’re terming out that the structure of your debt, which is the right thing to do, because I just want to make sure there is a big drop in the short-term debt, and I’m assuming that that’s just expanding out the duration of your liabilities.

That would be a correct assumption, Glenn. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Okay. And then I appreciate that is not our God-given right to know what the government is doing in every second with its position, but is there any comment you can provide in terms of those talks still in motion and any potential time because I know it comes up a lot?

Glenn, not at this time. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Okay, I appreciate it.

Thank you. Glenn Schorr – UBS: Okay. Thanks very much to all.

Okay, Glenn.

Your next question comes from the line of Guy Moszkowski with Bank of America. Guy Moszkowski – Bank of America: Good morning, gentlemen.

Hi, Guy. Guy Moszkowski – Bank of America: I mean, you spent quite a bit of time talking about consumer credit, and I appreciate the information you gave us. I do sent that there is concern about investors today that you may have slowed your reserve bill process without really yet seeing significant improvement in the forward credit indicators. And I was hoping that maybe to counter that, you could discuss in some detail the process that you went through and the main metrics that you studied in determining what you were going to do with reserve build. And also talk a little bit about the timing during the quarter when you do this, because I know in the past you used to say that you would do it quite a bit before the end of the quarter.

Let me try to provide you some color on that, Guy. As far as the process we go through, I’m sure it’s no different than the process that any other bank goes through. We make sure that we have adequate reserves to cover losses that are inherent in the portfolio. We determine those losses based upon a combination of flow rate statistics, the economic environment, where we see losses going into the future, and all of that adds into the loan loss reserve process. It’s not a -- it is obviously something that is judgmental. It’s not something that falls out of a calculator. I would tell you that what you should look at is -- or what I would ask investors to look at is that we’ve increased our months of coverage this quarter. So our loan loss -- our consumer loan loss reserve balances now are sufficient to cover 13.3 months of coincident losses. And again, that’s an increase from last quarter. And I guess finally, the other thing I would say is, the consumer loan loss reserve itself at 6.4% of consumer loss is pretty strong. We did start reserve -- the building of reserves on consumer portfolios relatively early. I recall having significant builds as far back as the first quarter of 2007. So this is not something where we’ve just begun to look at this. It just reflects our continuous process. Guy Moszkowski – Bank of America: And of all of the metrics that we see, for example, the 90-day delinquencies and the like, which do you think that we should pay the most attention to in terms of evaluating the choices that you made in terms of building reserves other than the 13 months?

Well, you certainly have to take a look at the combination of the 90-day plus delinquencies. Let’s talk about cards. I think cards and mortgages are somewhat different. From a card’s point of view, as I mentioned, when we look at things, we are looking at both the early buckets as well as the later buckets. And admittedly, we don’t give you much information on the early buckets. But in the retail partner cards portfolio, as we mentioned, we are seeing improvements in the 90-day plus buckets, and we are also seeing some stabilization in the early buckets. And that’s what gives us, again, some deal of comfort when looking at that portfolio. Branded cards, I think I mentioned that we’ve seen reductions in the 90-plus day delinquencies. But as I noted, the net credit losses continued to grow slightly this quarter. And so we’re somewhat more cautious in that portfolio. And finally, when it comes to mortgages, as I mentioned on the call just before, the HAMP program right now has done a rather significant impact on our delinquency statistics and really makes it difficult for anyone from the outside to actually have a good view as to the inherent credit profile in our delinquency buckets. So -- Guy Moszkowski – Bank of America: Yes, that’s fair. That’s an important point. Thank you for that. If I can just revisit the TARP question, just in terms of the trust preferred portion of it as opposed to the common stock portion, how would you eventually envision funding a repayment there? Would that mostly come from runoff of assets, say, in holdings and the cash flows that would be generated from that? Or would you ultimately look to perhaps replace the funding of the debt market?

I think on that point, Guy, we have -- as you mentioned, we have several options and I think -- what you might take a look is that we may be a little bit of each. I’m not quite sure that we would just use one lever there. I think the nice thing about our balance sheet right now given our liquid cash position, our capital base and the fact that we have termed out our debt as we’ve got. We’ve got tons of options as far as how we might approach that. So we’ve given ourselves a great deal of flexibility. Guy Moszkowski – Bank of America: Okay. Thanks very much for addressing my questions, appreciate it.

No problem.

Your next question comes from the line of James Mitchell with Buckingham Research. James Mitchell – Buckingham Research: Hey, good morning.

Good morning. James Mitchell – Buckingham Research: A quick follow-up question on hedges. I appreciate that you talked about net mark-to-market gains in holdings. But obviously you do have some fat tailed credit hedges in the investment bank and probably in other places. Is there a way you can kind of quantify is it really just -- is it all in the lending line in the investment bank or is there other places that we should think about you experiencing some hedging losses?

We do have a certain amount of hedging losses sprinkled throughout the various businesses, but the most significant concentration of hedging activities would be in our lending book in Securities and Banking. James Mitchell – Buckingham Research: That will be the lion’s share, right?

Correct. James Mitchell – Buckingham Research: Okay. And then maybe just a question on expenses, we saw -- obviously you got rid of Smith Barney. We saw about $700 million decline in expenses in the brokerage segment. Yet expenses for all of Citigroup were generally flat. It seemed like it was comp-ed, yet capital markets revenues were down. What’s kind of going on there? I guess, how should we think about that expense line going forward? I would have thought we would have seen a little bit lower expenses.

When it comes to comp expenses, obviously we review that throughout the year and adjust our accrual percentages accordingly. I think what I mentioned to you at the end of the second quarter earnings call is that our expectation would be that for the full year our expenses would be in the $48 billion to $50 billion range. And I’d say that you can expect that we would come in towards the lower end of that range for the full year. James Mitchell – Buckingham Research: Okay. Was there anything this quarter that you say on comp pressure just generally in the industry given the strong results pretty much everywhere?

Yes. As I think we’ve all said, we are committed to paying competitive compensation and we look at our results and we just adjust our accrual rates accordingly. James Mitchell – Buckingham Research: Okay. Fair enough. Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Moshe Orenbuch with Credit Suisse. Moshe Orenbuch – Credit Suisse: Thanks. Sorry about that. I was wondering if you could kind of flush out your discussion of the modifications on card loans and what that does to kind of delinquencies and loss trends.

Just in general?

Yes, I admit it desperately. We have a variety of forbearance programs that we employ in both of our cards businesses. And those forbearance and modification programs vary from the very short-term to long-term rewrites of the loans. And what we do is an active screening process of all of our cardholders and try to work with each of those cardholders that we identify as someone who might benefit from one of these programs. I’d like to go into more specifics, but we could actually -- there is at least a dozen programs in each of the portfolios at play. Maybe the best thing to do would be you could follow up with our Investor Relations people and they can give you a little bit more color on these programs. Moshe Orenbuch – Credit Suisse: No problem. But in general, these effects you’re saying have increased delinquencies, but not charge-offs. Or did I get that backwards?

No, they don’t increase delinquencies. For the most part, our forbearance programs serve to decrease the delinquencies. Moshe Orenbuch – Credit Suisse: Okay. And if -- have you been able to size for us – would you be able to size for us like kept by how much?

Yes. You have to go into each individual bucket and it’s a general -- obviously we think that these forbearance programs yield positive results both for us as well as for our customers. In holding down delinquency statistics for us as well as reducing ultimate net credit losses. Our view of customers that have entered into --specifically on cards, have entered into forbearance programs. Any customer that successfully completes, especially our short-term forbearance programs, they are account performance and after that, it’s far better than accountants that don’t enter into the forbearance programs. Moshe Orenbuch – Credit Suisse: In other words, just the overall impact on delinquencies is not something that you sized.

It really is difficult to size it specific to each individual program. Moshe Orenbuch – Credit Suisse: Okay.

Your next question comes from the line of John McDonald with Sanford Bernstein. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: Hi, John, in the -- in terms of liquidity, you noted in the press release that your cash liquidity, cash type holdings up to $244 billion on three big increases. Sorry if you’ve discussed that already. What was the driver of that? And is that something that might continue, or would you be looking to kind of reinvest this.

Well, you know, as I think I mentioned at the second quarter, we are deliberately liquid at this point in time. And we think that that is a prudent position to take given the economic environment and leave ourselves some flexibility for next year. So I wouldn’t expect another mass of increase in cash, but you can expect that we will remain prudently liquid going into next year. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: Okay, that’s helpful. And you mentioned a few factors quickly about the NIM was that one of them? And can you just remind us that those factors, again on the NIM, and those likely to persist going to.

Yes, I mean -- You know with RIM you can always point about 17 different things that are going to impact now. Clearly, the cash that we have on the balance sheet is one depressor because it’s not -- most of it. I mean, it’s interest earning but obviously at rather low rates. But the factors of NIM that I think I called out earlier was a combination of the higher cost of borrowings. I mean, we had the TruPS issue, and so we’ve increased the long-term debt for the trust by a net of about $10 billion. That added about $200 million of interest cost into the quarter itself. And then we did ramp up our borrowings outside of the TLGP program. So that clearly had an impact on them to score. And then the remainder is business spread compression, both the yield compression in the asset businesses, again due to de-risking and reducing some loan portfolios, and a compression of spreads in our deposit businesses. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: Just the absolute level of rates being low.

Exactly. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: Okay. And this is a looking out question, maybe it’s early, but maybe just thinking about excess capital potentially. I think early thoughts and what type of ratios might be needed in the future. And again early thoughts on future kind of course, if the pulling excise capital for you guys.

I think Vikram said that our two near-term goals are getting to the point where we have sustained profitability and looking to repay TARP. Obviously, by returning to sustained profitability, as I said, we were looking to make selective investments. And so we have begun to deploy some level of additional capital and expense dollars into our Citicorp businesses. But again, we are doing that in the -- looking ahead at a rather uncertain economic environment. So we want to be very selective on that, at least in the near-term. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: Okay. And the final question, just on the deferred tax asset, could you update us on where that stood at quarter end and how much was included in Tier 1, and what will affect your ability to kind of use all that going forward?

Yes. The deferred tax asset at the end of September had shrunk to -- the net deferred tax asset had shrunken to about $38 billion, down about $4 billion in the quarter. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: In terms of how much you get to account towards Tier 1 and what will have drive whether that amount -- that's included in Tier 1 changes going forward.

Well, Tier 1 -- the amount in Tier 1 again, there is a complex formula that we have to go through as far as how much you are able to include in Tier 1. And I think as of the end of the third quarter, we have roughly 13 billion of the DTA now included in Tier 1. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: Okay. And again, I know it’s complicated, but in terms of whether you get to include more going forward?

Well, as we will be able to include more going forward is subject again to limitations. The limitations, it’s a test that restructuring a building to include deferred tax assets to the lower of 10% of your Tier 1 capital or your expected utilization of the deferred tax asset over the course of the next 12 months. And so those are the two factors that we look. The simple way to think about it from my point of view is that our position right now is from a Tier 1 point of view to the extent that we start generating a net income on a consistent basis. Basically, it’s the pretax dollars that serve to drive up our Tier 1 capital. John McDonald – Sanford Bernstein: Got it. Great, thank you.

Okay.

Your next question comes from the line of Ron Mandle with GIC. Ron Mandle – GIC: Hi, thanks. I have follow-up question on expenses. Given where you are now on expenses for the nine months and we get to the low end of the $48 billion to $50 billion would imply expenses in the fourth quarter of about $12.5 billion, which (inaudible) about 6% from the third quarter. So I guess I have two questions. Number one is, is that the right way to think about the fourth quarter and then how would you guide us on the extent that look for next year?

I’m not going to provide any guidance right now on next year. Ron Mandle – GIC: I was hoping that since you’ve commented on the credit outlook, you might comment on the expense outlook.

Ron, the only thing I can say is that we are going to vigilantly manage the expense base. And as far as expense grows into next year, that will depend on a couple of independent items. One is our ability to further dispose off assets in business in Citi Holdings, as well as make selective investments in Citicorp. Ron Mandle – GIC: Okay. And then the fourth quarter outlook, the implications on the numbers you’ve given is that it would be up by until ’12. What would be driving that as you look at it now?

Well, I think I said you can expect this to be on the low end -- towards the lower end of their range. I don’t remember saying 12.5. Ron Mandle – GIC: Well, you are at 35.5 now, so 12.5 gets you to the 48?

I’m conservative by nature. Ron Mandle – GIC: And if it is in the 12.5 area for the fourth quarter, would that be a good place to start thinking about 2010?

I would think that you would probably take a look at where we actually end up at the end of the fourth quarter as far as where we are coming out in 2010. Ron Mandle – GIC: And I mean, are you saying that you might be below the 48 then in the fourth quarter? Or I mean -- with the number, we’d get you to below 48 for the full, yes.

Ron, FX rates, there is a bunch of things that can happen in the fourth quarter. And -- I mean, you’re not going to get a specific number out of me, Ron. Ron Mandle – GIC: Okay, thanks very much.

Okay.

Next question comes from the line of Betsy Graseck with Morgan Stanley. Betsy Graseck – Morgan Stanley: Hi, good afternoon. Couple of questions. One is on NIM, and I know we went through in detail some of the things that impacted NIM this quarter. I just wanted to understand that you are thinking about the look-forward here and I realize that one of the positive drivers could be a reinvestment of assets into a slightly more risk, I think is what you’re saying, given the strong liquidity levels that you have. But could you talk about some of the other moving parts, including how you’re thinking the decline in assets to draw down, the roll-off on assets is going to impact it. And some of the debt refinancings that you’ve got on the liability side.

Yes. Again, NIM, as I said before and as you’ve just indicated, Betsy, there are several moving parts. And if you look ahead -- and let’s not look ahead too far, but obviously we are still de-risking elements of the portfolio, specifically Citi Holdings in total, as well as still some portfolios that we got in Citicorp. And so that de-risking is going to -- certainly going to continue into the fourth quarter. And for Citi Holdings will continue clearly all the way through 2010. We will look to add some earnings assets into Citicorp. Again, as I mentioned, we’ve begun to make some very selective investments. Specifically in Asia and in Latin America, where we are looking at growing some card acquisitions and actually investing in new branches. So that should tend to add some earning assets into next year. On the other side of the equation, I mentioned -- you just mentioned, I should say that, we’ve got a debt coming due next year. Let me just make a comment on that. We’ve got roughly $45 billion of death maturing in 2010. And our current view given the way we’re running down the holdings assets. And with our current cash position is that we really have to -- from the top of the House point of view, a reissue very little of that debt. Our debt issuance is at the top of the House next year. It will probably be no more than in the range of $15 billion. So we actually think that we are in pretty good shape from a funding point of view. And all of that and will add into the NIM picture as we go into 2010. Betsy Graseck – Morgan Stanley: Okay, that’s great. And so the $30 billion, they are just coming from asset roll-off primarily.

That’s the way I would look at it. Betsy Graseck – Morgan Stanley: Great, okay. And then within the Citi Holdings, he’s got in North America loans roughly $273. You indicated on slide 29 in fittings. And the mortgage pieces rolling off here obviously has the assets pay down. How do I think about the other pieces here? The student cars, personal auto, commercial real estate, are these all in role (inaudible) or are you selectively reinvesting for sale later in the future. How do I think about that?

Think of them in terms of they are all declining although -- again, some of these are actually businesses. And if we’re looking to sell the businesses, we certainly want to do enough new issuance, new underwritings in the business to still make it an attractive sales opportunity. So we are weighing all those considerations. As we looked ahead to new business into these portfolios. Betsy Graseck – Morgan Stanley: Okay. So some kind of modeling assuming a duration, a roll-off based on certain durations. And I’m just trying to understand how much you’re interested in, in actually keeping these footings where they are today so that you can tell them in the future or --?

And Betsy, that’s going to vary business by business. The breakout that we provided you on page 29 would be by specific loan types; first mortgages, second mortgages. Maybe what you’ve got to think about and what we will have to think about putting out to give you a better view is some of the assets by businesses, from a business point of view, I think we have this in the supplement. Student loans is a business, but Citi Financial is a business and Citi Financial has elements of first mortgages and personal loans et cetera, et cetera. So it’s again -- you need to look at it on a business point of view as well as a particular asset portfolio point of view. Betsy Graseck – Morgan Stanley: And your point on Citi Financial is you are not -- you are reinvesting in that business. So I’d want to keep those assets from rolling off too much or --?

We are trying to be very deliberate in how we look at that business. As I said, we’ve got -- we certainly want to drive down the assets in Citi Holdings. At the same point in time, we do want to maintain the viability of the businesses that we are looking to sell. And so what we will try to do over time is optimize the level of assets and the type of assets that we have in each of those businesses. Betsy Graseck – Morgan Stanley: Okay. So anything else Citi Financial and North American loans and student loans probably come down at a faster clip? Faster? Anyway, we can talk offline about that. I understand your thought process. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Betsy.

The next question comes from the line of Meredith Whitney with Meredith Whitney Advisory Group. Meredith Whitney – Meredith Whitney Advisory Group: Hi there, good afternoon.

Hi, Meredith. Meredith Whitney – Meredith Whitney Advisory Group: Since so much of your numbers today are influenced by the trial mod results, I wanted to ask a couple of questions. Number one, are the early -- is the early experience consistent with the report they came out in October with the Congressional oversight result, which talked to the difficulty of finding documentation on the modifications. Can you provide more color there? And then also a question I’ve been asking the management that when -- when do you think an appropriate report card will be accessible in terms of the success of these? Is it fourth quarter, first quarter? And then I have a follow-up after that, please.

Both questions, Meredith, refer to the HAMP program? Meredith Whitney – Meredith Whitney Advisory Group: Yes.

Okay. The earliest modifications that we entered into were in May. And so we are just finishing up a five-month period right now. And I’d say that the documentation process, both in the way that the request is given to the consumer as well as the assistance that we are giving consumers, has improved over time. So the early stages, we are saying some difficulty in the customers fulfilling the documentation requests, as either you noted or we noted, that’s one of the reasons behind the extension of the trial period from three months to five months. So let’s kind of wait until we at least get the October and perhaps November results in to see whether or not the documentation collection or submission process has improved. As far as an overall scorecard on HAMP, my sense especially given the fact that you’ve got five months for the -- five-month trial for all modifications entered into prior to September 1st and then a three-month period is at best it will be towards the end of the fourth quarter, but it’s probably more of a first quarter next year type of event. Meredith Whitney – Meredith Whitney Advisory Group: When you release fourth quarter results? Would that be --?

Well, again, it’s -- we’ll know more, but you asked for a final scorecard. And I actually think the final scorecard is something that will actually best be judged in the first quarter of next year. Meredith Whitney – Meredith Whitney Advisory Group: Okay. And then my follow-up is, with respect to Citi Holdings asset sales, there has been a little bit of movement and I want to specifically talk about -- talk to the card portfolio, a little bit of movement, but it’s been tiny. What’s your -- what’s the time table? Can you talk broadly about some of the conversations you had and what you expect in terms of the movement within that portfolio, please?

You know, Meredith, I’m not going to comment on specific conversations that we’ve had. I think I just mentioned the fact that on October 1st, we’ve already closed the sale of Nikko Cordial Securities and Nikko Asset Management. Those two transactions will generate a $25 billion reduction in Citi Holdings on top of the $32 billion that we had in the third quarter this year. So we are very much about trying to reduce the Citi Holdings assets as quickly as possible, as quickly as feasible, and as quickly as it’s prudent. Meredith Whitney – Meredith Whitney Advisory Group: Okay. And then lastly, you had some data -- historical Case-Shiller data, but I was more curious to see what your view on the US housing market is regionally. So if you could just comment on specific markets where you think we are in the cycle, please. And that’s my final question. Thanks.

You know what, Meredith, I really -- I'm not prepared today to discuss individual markets for housing. Maybe I’ll have the Investor Relations people follow up on something more specific with you. Meredith Whitney – Meredith Whitney Advisory Group: Okay, thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Mike Mayo with CLSA. Mike Mayo – CLSA: Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Michael. Mike Mayo – CLSA: In transaction processing GTS, your revenues have held up better than some of your peers. I was wondering what are some of the ins and outs there.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by ins and outs. Obviously, we’ve got strong customer activity. I think that that’s evident in both the deposit raising as well as in the assets under custody. I also think it’s actually due to the superior platform that we have. We spent a lot of years and a lot of money we invested in our CitiDirect platform. And I think that those investments are holding up over time. The CitiDirect platform is probably the best way we have as far as capitalizing on our rather unique franchise as being the only truly global bank. Mike Mayo – CLSA: Is there anything on the quarter that’s a little bit better?

Well, increased deposits, increased assets under custody. Transaction levels with the customers were pretty much stable over the entire quarter. So our customers very much remain engaged with us. I mentioned some of the wins that we recently had, both in Hong Kong and as well as with the IFC. So it’s pretty much spread across the variety of the services that we offer through GTS, whether it be through purchase card or traditional cash management business, trade services and security services. Mike Mayo – CLSA: Okay. And then a different question. I know you’ve gotten many questions on this, but I can’t figure out what your core loan loss rate is. And I think you kind of said from the outside we are not able to do that. But you can imagine as a user of financial statements, this is quite frustrating between the HAMP program, which you discussed, and the forbearance program in cards and any -- I don't know if you have a payment holiday there or other loan modifications. And so I guess maybe for the future or now, I mean, you said the consumer losses went from 5.88% from the second quarter to 5.73% in the third quarter. So if you didn’t have these programs that consumer loss rate of 5.73%, where would that number be?

Michael, that’s really not an analysis that I’m prepared to give right now. There is an awful lot of judgment that goes into something like that. I think that we also think that you have to take into account when you use things like loss rates is the fact that we are in the process of shrinking our asset portfolios. And therefore, when you look at loss rates, you’ve got to be very careful about how much of that denominator effect is actually getting reflected in the loss rate. That’s one of the reasons why I tend to focus my conversation with you and my outlook with you on the absolute amount of net credit losses. Mike Mayo – CLSA: A fair point. I’m not sure if Vikram is still there. I went to see Vikram at the 92nd Street Y, the speech he gave, and he said it’s just way too early to judge what’s going to happen with the consumer and the losses. And what would you advise to us looking on the outside? What should we be monitoring since we can’t completely rely onto the consumer loss rate, we can’t completely rely on the delinquencies? What else should we on the upside be paying attention to the most?

Well, first of all, I’m glad you were there. Thank you, Mike. I appreciate that. One of the things that is going on here is there is a decoupling between the traditional measures and unemployment versus things like losses. And so this, for some reason -- and you hate to say this, but it seems like a different cycle from a perspective of what’s driving losses. And you also know that you had the first aspect of it, which was housing prices dropping and all the sort of the loans that were made to less creditworthy individuals, and now you are in the second cycle, which is really more related to who has got job losses. And so ultimately it’s going to come down to how many jobs are there in the country. And it’s probably the single best driver of trying to figure out what happens on a macro basis. Having said that, each of us has a slightly different portfolio, and in fact, slightly different bend on it because we started very early, January 2008, in cutting back our card portfolio as an example, or with a number of things in the mortgage business. So I wish I could give you a statistically precise way of estimating that, but the reality is that different people are in different stage of the cycle. I think the way though that John Gerspach characterized this is exactly right, which is that we like some of the things we are seeing. There are certain areas where public policy is a good approach to what we may need to do, but it does cloud out some numbers. And you can’t run and experiment side-by-side with HAMP and without HAMP, and how can you ever talk about what would it be, this or that way. And so it is complicated, I get it. But we all are going to grateful that we’re actually seeing some signs of stability here. And that’s a positive. We actually like some of the things we are seeing in the international market. There seem to be a lot more decoupling going on there, which is something we thought would happen. Mike Mayo – CLSA: Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Next question comes from the line of Ed Najarian with ISI Group. Ed Najarian – ISI Group: Good afternoon. Just two questions. First, obviously as we look out several years, you are battling toward a very over-capitalized position given where your capital is now, and then the idea that with Citi Holdings and the special asset pool shrinking to zero, your balance sheet will decline very massively. So the first question is, could you give us some sense of how we should think about the deployment of that excess capital. Should we think about some giant buyback program three or four years out, or two or three years out, or some kind of a special dividend? That’s the first question, I guess, and then I have a follow-up.

One way -- Ed, this is Vikram. So, one way to think about this is we do have a business that’s going to grow with the Citicorp over time, and you know it happens to be in those markets and those businesses, which are pretty fast growth. And you ought to expect that business to get its share of capital over time, in line with the growth rates in those markets and the success we may have even little bit beyond what those markets are growing. That’s a good assumption in my view. Now, it’s not going to be linear, it may not be this quarter, next quarter. I don’t when it is, but it has gone to be a good long-term assumption, as you pointed out. Now the second issue is that we all yet don’t know what the right level of capital is to run financial institutions. They haven’t decided that yet, and there are a lot of conversations that are happening. And certainly, there are enough disparate schools of thoughts, and so you need to have that debates land somewhere to them and say, okay, what is really the right level of capital for different kind of institutions. So that’s the second point. And third point is that it is, don’t forget, that we do have to deal with some of the TARP issues and all of that. We need to get through that, but clearly we are running the company to have capital than that. Over time, and if that does happen, that can open up a lot different possibilities for us. And it’s really too soon to comment on that. Ed Najarian – ISI Group: So it’s reasonable to think about maybe using some of that excess capital to repurchase some of the government shares?

What I would – sorry --

I think, as Vikram pointed out, it’s a question as to finding what excess capital is. And until we get a clearer guidance from -- and by us, I mean, everybody in financial services until we get clearer guidance as to what appropriate capital ratios are. It’s a little premature to judge exactly how much excess capital we or anybody else truly has. Ed Najarian – ISI Group: Okay. Let me move on. In terms of thinking about the run-down of Citi Holdings over time, obviously you’ve got a very large portion of the loan loss reserve allocated to Citi Holdings. As you think about that rundown, and I know this is a difficult question to answer because it requires looking out pretty war. Would you anticipate that most of that allocated reserve gets burned up, as Citi Holding runs down, or would it be potentially more appropriate to think about having a lot of reserve left over, say three years from now when Citi Holdings is mostly run down that can be run through the income statement, accrete the capital, use to further things, what have you.

You know, Ed, I’m glad you let in by saying this is a very difficult question to answer, because it truly is. Obviously, we have the level of reserves we do because we believe that those -- that is the amount of losses that are actually inherent in the portfolio. So your question -- it also has to take into account when does the economy actually improve and when would we actually dispose of the assets. And the timing of each is not -- I can’t comment on either at this point in time. So again, it’s a little bit premature. I love the scenario you’re painting. I’d love to wake up in 2012 and find that I’ve got $20 billion of excess reserves to give to Vikram, but it’s a little premature for that.

One more thing on that, Ed, is that a lot of the assets in there are cards and mortgages. There are the US consumer assets, and frankly there the businesses that we don’t want to be in going forward are want to be in a much smaller way, but they are not any different than anybody else’s assets they own, and you ought to think about what you are thinking from this as the same metric that you’d apply to these assets. Ed Najarian – ISI Group: Right, okay. But I guess you answered the question as best you could by saying right now that level of reserve is your best guess for the inherent losses in the portfolio.

That’s right. That’s probably true for most reserves anywhere. Ed Najarian – ISI Group: Okay. All right, thanks a lot.

All right. Thank you, Ed.

Your next question comes from the line of Chris Kotowski with Oppenheimer. Chris Kotowski – Oppenheimer: Hi, just -- most of my questions have been asked. But just wanted to make sure, on the page 11 of the slide presentation under brokerage and asset management, you are just picking up these joint venture pretax net income as opposed to revenues. Right?

That’s exactly right. Chris Kotowski – Oppenheimer: So if you had -- I think you said it was $675 million of gross revenues there minus the $320 million of gain. So that means the pretax net was roughly $355 million.

Well, there is other businesses that actually report into this line as well. We’ve got -- as I said, we’ve laid out in past, we’ve got some Latin American asset management businesses in here. So it’s something more than just the equity pickup from the Morgan Stanley-Smith Barney joint venture. Chris Kotowski – Oppenheimer: Okay. All right. That’s it. Thanks.

Thanks.

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. John Andrews.

Thank you, everybody, for taking the time and having the patience today. Obviously, it is a complicated story and we will be available for any further questions if you call the Investor Relations group. And this call will be on rebroadcast on the website later today. Thank you.

This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.