Good day ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the General Electric first quarter 2014 earnings conference call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. My name is Ellen. I will be your conference coordinator today. (Operator instructions). As a reminder this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the program over to your host for today’s conference, Matt Cribbins, Vice President of Investor Communications. Please proceed.

Thank you, Ellen. Good morning, and welcome, everyone. We are pleased to host today’s first quarter webcast. Regarding the materials for this webcast, we issued the press release and presentation earlier this morning on our website at www.ge.com/investor. As always, elements of this presentation are forward-looking and are based on our best view of the world and our businesses as we see them today. Those elements can change as the world changes. Please interpret them in that light. For today’s webcast, we have our Chairman and CEO, Jeff Immelt; our Senior Vice President and CFO, Jeff Bornstein, and our Vice President, Subsea Systems, Rod Christie. We listened to your feedback and thought we’d try something new. To drive a more strategic discussion on the call, we’ll be inviting business leaders to participate to talk about their business, markets, new product introductions and major initiatives. We’ve asked Rod to join today to talk about Subsea. Now I’d like to turn it over to our Chairman and CEO, Jeff Immelt.

Thanks, Matt, and good morning everybody. The GE team had a good quarter and have also been improving environment. The U.S gets a little bit better every day. Europe is improving. The growth markets continue to expand and will provide growth during the year, even with volatility. We had strength across most of our portfolio as global infrastructure markets remained solid. We continued to benefit in energy, oil and gas and aviation sectors and we saw some improvement in the demand for credit. At the same time we encountered a few headwinds in the quarter. Weather impacted our appliances business, but improved in March. Transportation was impacted by mining inventory corrections and the U.S healthcare market continued to experience volatility. Some of this improved as the quarter progressed. Our execution was strong. Industrial segment growth was up 12% above our 10% goal. Organic growth was up 8% above our 4% to 7% goal. Margin growth was 50 basis points and we’re on track to meet our goal of 17% margins by 2016. Our capital earnings and cash were in line with our expectations for the year. We returned $2.4 billion to investors in dividends and buyback and announced $2 billion bolt-on acquisitions. And finally, we submitted our SEC filing Synchrony, the RFS spinoff. This is an important step as we head for our 70% industrial goal. We delivered $0.33 of operating EPS at 9%, excluding the impact of NBCU gains in 2013 restructuring. This is the kind of quarter GE investors should like. The environment was not perfect, but we were able to deliver strong results due to the breadth of our portfolio. Orders were flat overall. Backlog grew to $245 billion and orders pricing was up 0.4 points. While equipment orders can be lumpy, service orders, things like aviation…

Thanks, Jeff. So starting on the left side of the page, I want to give you a flavor of how we see the long term prospect for oil and gas industry before we drill into the Subsea sector specifically. The forecast is for global oil and gas demand to continue to grow through 2018, with oil mainly driven by the ongoing industrialization and emerging economies and the rise of living standards, while gas emerges across mainly all of the economies as a cleaner fuel source. In addition to the increasing demand, the other dynamic to consider here is well decline rates on existing operations of around 3% to 4% onshore and 6% to 10% offshore. The combination of both these factors makes ongoing investment necessary to develop new reserves and enhance the recovery in existing assets. Moving to the top right of the page, we see these dynamics driving 4% and 2% CAGRs in production rates for oil and gas respectively through 2018. The expectation is for stronger growth in Subsea and unconventional production. Translating all of this into total industry spend, we expect to see continued growth as high NOCs and independents work to recover more hydrocarbons from existing assets and bring on new reserves to meet the growing demand. With respect to Subsea sector, the expectation for long term development of deep water reserves is supported by the robust activity we see in drilling in front end engineering design through the cycle. Given this expectation, our Subsea Systems business is well positioned to serve customers with both technology and life-of-field services across the globe. Our extensive capabilities enable us to provide everything from discrete components to full Subsea production systems. We’re also uniquely placed against our competitors and that we can leverage technology from other GE businesses and…

Great. Thanks Rod. I’m going to start with operations in the quarter, then we’ll move through the segments. We had continuing operations revenues of $34.2 billion, down 2% from the first quarter of 2013. Industrial sales of $24 billion were up 8% and GE Capital revenues of $10.5 billion were down 8%. Operating earnings of $3.3 billion were down 18% and operational earnings per share of $0.33 were down 15%, principally driven by NBC as Jeff mentioned earlier. On the next page, I’ll take you through more detail on the normalized EPS work versus last year. Continuing EPS of $0.29 includes the impact of non-operating pensions and net earnings per share of $0.30 includes the impact of discontinued operations. We had $12 million benefits in the quarter in discontinued operations with no material impact from WMC. Pending claims at WMC declined to $4.5 billion, reflecting $1.2 billion of resolutions, with reserves declining in line with expectations. New pending claims in the quarter were negligible. As Jeff said, first quarter CFOA was $1.7 billion, with industrial cash flow of $1.2 billion and received 500 million of dividends in GE capital. The GE tax rate for the quarter was 24% and the GE Capital rate was 9%. For the year we’re still expecting the GE rate to be around 20% and the GE Capital rate to be in the single digits. On the right side, you can see the segment results. And as Jeff mentioned, performance was mixed by business, but overall pretty good with industrial segment revenues up 8% and operating profit up 12%. GE Capital earnings were flat in the quarter on lower assets. Now I’ll take you through the dynamics of each of the segments on the pages that follow. And first on the other items page, I’ll start…

Great, Jeff. Thanks. Finally on the framework; look, we’re reaffirming the framework for the year. We feel good really about our progress on the industrial side and we think -- which you saw in the first quarter in terms of organic growth. Solid organic growth and good margin expansion should continue in the second quarter and throughout the year. Capital is on track for its plan and CFOA remains on track as well with the framework. There is a lot going on in corporate and you understand our goals for restructuring. We’ll give you frequent updates on our progress. And look, with underlying EPS up 9% in the quarter and strong industrial segment profit growth, we think we’re off to a good start. So Matt let me turn it back over to you and let’s take some questions.

Thanks, Jeff, Jeff and Rod, Ellen why don’t we open it up for questions?

(Operator instructions). Our first question is from Scott Davis with Barclays. Please go ahead. Scott Davis – Barclays Capital: Hi, good morning, guys.

Hey Scott. Scott Davis – Barclays Capital: The 8% core growth is a pretty big number. How do you think about the sustainability of those levels? It's probably about 2x the sector overall. And then I want ask a follow-up on margins. But let's just talk about core growth first.

Jeff, you want to start?

Yeah, Listen I think we’re very happy with the level of growth in the quarter. Reflects a lot of the order activity we had in 2013. As we said the short cycle businesses were definitely impacted by weather in the first quarter. We expect Industrial Solutions, Appliances and Lighting to get better as we move in the second quarter in the year. We’re still on framework. We expect organic growth for the year to be between 4% and 7% and I think we’re pleased that we are off to a strong start here.

Scott I would just add, I think wind always adds a little bit of noise plus or minus around each quarter. It was more on the plus side this quarter. And like I said at the outlook meeting in December, we have an internal plan that adds up to more than the range and that’s how we run the businesses and that’s -- I think we still believe in the framework for the year. But we have an internal plan that adds up to more than that. Scott Davis – Barclays Capital: Okay, fair enough. 50 bps of margins, just back of the envelope, 8% core growth should kind of get you there already. But you also talked about having value gap and cost-out. Is there any way to parse out the 50 bps and how you guys think about it via fixed-cost coverage from the volume leverage and the cost-out, how (indiscernible) break down to the 50 bps?

Mix was a bit of a head win for us in the quarter, more than 100 basis points in the quarter. That’s the strength and wind, the strength you heard Rod talk about with 37% sales growth in Subsea while MNC volume was down 7%. Mix for us in the quarter was about 100 or 120 basis points of headwind. And that was offset with strong value gap, a little bit of favorability in R&D, but principally by simplification. We had 160 basis points of favorability and structural cost and getting at delivering on both the structural cost initiative and delivering on the restructuring investments we’ve made. And that was partially offset by base cost inflation that generally reflects increases in salaries. I think we feel very good about the construct in the quarter. It’s more or less how we thought about the year and what we described to you at yearend. We know that we are going to grow equipment and revenue faster than services this year. And so mix will be an item for the year. We have to deliver on simplification, overcome that and grow margins. Scott Davis – Barclays Capital: That's helpful. Just a quick clarification, guys. I haven't heard you mention 8 series turbine in a long time. Do you actually have a commercially viable product at this point?

Yeah. I think Scott this is – we’ve gotten a couple of commitments and we’re in the process of rolling that out as we speak. We think this is going to be a great product at really a good time. Scott Davis – Barclays Capital: Perfect. Okay. Thanks, guys.

The next question comes from Deane Dray with Citi research Deane Dray – Citigroup: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Jeff, I was hoping you could expand on your comments on the bolt-on acquisition outlook. You all have been operating on a self-imposed investor-friendly range of -- it was $1 billion to $3 billion and then got inched up for Avio, $1 billion to $4 billion. And you are clearly signaling a willingness to go a bit higher than that for the right acquisition. That's the same language you used when you -- just before you got Avio. So maybe you could expand for us; how much higher above $4 billion? What applications or markets look interesting? It likely sounds like you've got something close.

Yeah, I wouldn’t read too much into it, Dean other than this is the way we answer the question typically from the standpoint of, we do the vast majority of our acquisitions in that range. People ask if you saw something that was strategic added to the growth rate, bolt-on, well priced secretive. Would you go above that? And clearly when we did Avio that was $4.2 billion and we had one to three type of range. It’s typically the way we answer the question in investor meetings and at the outlook meetings and things like that. Again I think we have discipline on capital allocation. We’re committed to dividend growth, the buyback that we talked about, but if we saw unique value in the marketplace like we did with Avio, we would do transactions like that. Deane Dray – Citigroup: Great. That makes lots of sense. And then since we have Rod on the call today, I would love to hear from you about -- if you could frame for us how much of the portfolio you have in place today. The whole idea that GE was able to take a lot of the proceeds from NBC and very quickly add some strategic assets into Oil & Gas and then you would stop and see how is the portfolio? Where are the gaps? From your perspective, how much of your portfolio do you have today in order to be effective? Are you half? Do you have three-quarters? I’m not asking you specific gaps, but maybe just frame for us how complete the portfolio is.

Sure. I think when I look at the portfolio that we had today for Subsea, we feel very good about it. We can compete pretty much anywhere that we choose to. I think what you’ve seen over the last six months around us moving more into the Subsea power and processing really gives you an idea of the brands that we can bring from GE broadly. So our conversion, total machinery, water, realize it’s a step into those spaces. So at this point in time, I feel very good about where we are and anything going forward is really a discussion about internal versus external with a bit more scale. So it’s really about timing. So very similar to what Jeff had talked about with if we see something that looks very attractive to us then potentially, but we don’t feel like there’s any major method in this point in time. Deane Dray – Citigroup: Great, thank you.

The next question is from Steve Tusa with JPMorgan. Steve Tusa – JPMorgan: Hey, good morning?

Hey Steve. How are you doing? Steve Tusa – JPMorgan: Good. Can you maybe just talk about -- you talked about the 50 bps continuing throughout the year. Anything you guys have -- I guess every company has become kind of seasonal with bigger quarters in the back half of the year. Anything lumpy in the second quarter that we need to be aware of, whether it's timing of some of these Advanced Gas Path stuff or Wind that we have to consider when thinking about the second quarter?

I don’t think so, Steve. I don’t think Jeff said he was carrying the 50 basis points all year, but thank you for that. We’ll have slightly higher restructuring charges in the second quarter. I said we’re still on track for the 1 to 1.5 and we’re going to spend 60% of that spend on the first half of the year. So the second quarter will be a little bit bigger than the first quarter. We will ship more GEnx engines in the second quarter than we shipped in the first quarter. But other than that, not a lot of -- I did mention that we’re working on one disposition. Not sure whether that’s going to be second or third quarter quite yet, but it’s not that a big a deal. Other than that I don’t have a lot of other items to call out for. Steve Tusa – JPMorgan: Okay. And then just on the organic growth calc, can we get the contribution from the deals and then ForEx, or negative from ForEx for the quarter, total deals, revenue contribution, and then ForEx? I know they are in the back of the supplement or whatever, or in the press release, but just the data.

Yeah. Sure, Steve. Reported revenue, up 8%. Acquisitions added 2 points. Dispositions had a 1.4 point impact, but then foreign exchange was half a point and that’s how you go from 8 to 8. Steve Tusa – JPMorgan: Okay. All right. That's great. Thanks.

The next question is from Jeff Sprague with Vertical Research Partners. Jeff Sprague – Vertical Research Partners: Thank you. Good morning, everyone.

Hey Jeff. How you doing?

I’m doing great, and you?

Good.

Just a question on the industrial balance sheet, I guess dovetailing with maybe opening the aperture a little bit on deals. You did do the $3 billion debt raise on the industrial balance sheet. How would you size that relative to the capacity that you have? You teased us a little bit in December with some juice there. Is $3 billion the number or is it something larger than that?

The $3 billion was in the context of the capital allocation plan that we put together for 2014. And we saw the first quarter where markets was very opportunistic. We issued the $3 billion. We were immensely oversubscribed and we’re very pleased with the rates that we took the $3 billion at, well inside on after tax basis our dividend yield. That’s how we size it within the context of our capital allocation game plan for the year. We’re constantly reevaluating the capital allocation game plan with the team and the board, and we’ll continue to do that.

But that’s roughly the comfortable number relative to the cost commitments to capital and everything?

No. It's the relevant comfortable number within the context of the capital allocation plan we pulled together for the year.

Okay. And then, can you just size for us the gains that you have in CLL and energy financial services?

Yeah. So, CLL we did sell about 18,000 boxcars per diems, meaning daily rental boxcars in the quarter that was worth a little north of $100 million. We did sell some private equity investments that we do reasonably routinely and just a little bit of Volcker driven the first quarter. That was a much smaller gain. And then energy finance, it's pretty routine for us. We had about, I don’t know, $150 million of gains associated with properties that we sold in energy finance in the first quarter.

Right, thank you very much.

The next question is from John Inch with Deutsche Bank.

Thank you. Good morning everybody.

Hey John.

Good morning guys. Jeff, could we flesh out a little bit of the playbook for energy, the energy management business? It looks like you guys made a leadership change there. How are you thinking about really just the portfolio? And maybe Jeff Bornstein you’ve gotten into further the restructuring, how that kind of maybe compliments that segment or your focus on it, just something that might provide us a little bit more color.

John, here’s the way I look at it. First from a technical standpoint, there are pieces of the energy management business that are great fits for the rest of the company, like power conversion. As Rod said, that’s a great complement to oil and gas, and some of the things we’re doing. So technically these are industries we understand and can compete in. Our relevant competitors have margin rates that are 10% plus. Some of that’s scale, and some of that’s our own complexity. What Jeff Bornstein said today is that we’re committed to restructure, and that’s going to provide some big margin lift in that business. And then I just think we can execute better, Mark Begor is a guy that’s well known inside the company of being a great recruiter and an extremely experienced operator, turn around guy and he is in place, and we’re hiring people from the industry. My intent is to run this business and make it better and make it accretive to investors and drive earnings in it. Could there be a couple of segments in there that had long term fits for GE? Could be. We’ll sort that out and be very tough minded about it, but this segment can do better than what you’re seeing right now. And that’s our commitment to you, is to make it better both from a cost standpoint, and from a market standpoint.

So just on that front, I’d just add that they actually -- you can't see it in the results yet. It's getting eaten up in operations, but we are making progress in restructuring. We had close to a $25 million of benefits in restructuring in the first quarter, and we expect that to accelerate throughout the year. There is some progress here. Our manufacturing delinquencies are down 50% versus yearend and so, we are making progress. I understand -- completely understand you can't see it in the results yet, but our expectations are this business is going to improve dramatically from an operating earnings perspective over the balance of the year.

Okay. That was my other part of the question here. So sequential improvement and it sounds like Jeff Immelt, there’s no reason this business can't be running at double digit margins. Is that fair?

Look, everybody -- I think John everybody else, unlike our other businesses where our margins are ahead of our peers, this is one where we trail our peers and we can do better. John Inch – Deutsche Bank: Can I just ask about the Oil & Gas business for a second? There’s a broad level of concern in the industry about flattish CapEx budgets for the integrateds and obviously just the global economy is still not particularly helpful. Price of oil doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Maybe you can provide a little bit more color, given that you featured Oil & Gas on the call. How does that context of these big integrated companies with flat if not even maybe declining CapEx budgets, how does that dovetail with your own business and why is your own business either more or less impervious to that?

Rod, why don’t you take a crack?

Sure. I think -- and I’m going to talk specifically about what I’m seeing in Subsea today. Really what I see is a lot more frontend engagement. So customers aren’t -- the customers that I’m talking to aren’t really looking at dialing back the number of projects. They’re looking at how do they get better capital efficiency. So we’ve seen more frontend engagement around technology, the selection of that technology configuration and how can we deploy with less risks, shorter cycle and potentially at a lower cost. So in many cases what I thought about with the structuring our product really played to that. We’ve taken cycle out, which obviously means a shorter carrying period for any capital investment in the Subsea area from my perspective. So I think most of the customers are looking to continue to drive as many of the projects as they can. It’s making it much easier for us from our point of view of actually early engagement, early dialogue, early engineering so we can take more risk out.

John, can I -- I’d add to that. The reinforcement of the way we build our oil and gas business by really invest very specific segments that have faster growth rates than the industry itself. Things like Subsea, turbo machinery and the LNG train, some of our downstream technologies. We really are in the places where there’s going to be a lot of capital continue to be spent. John Inch – Deutsche Bank: Okay. So looking at Shell's CapEx deployment is not really the correct proxy, in other words, is what you are saying?

Exactly, yeah. John Inch – Deutsche Bank: Thanks very much.

The next question comes from Julian Mitchel with the Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Julian Mitchell – Credit Suisse: I just had a couple of questions on the margin bridge. I think, firstly, value gap was maybe what, about a $100 million tailwind in Q1? Just wanted to check that. And back in January you had talked about a $200 million tailwind for the year in value gap. Is that still the case or have you updated those assumptions?

No. I think that’s what we guided at yearend, that we expected the value gap for the year to be $100 million to $200 million. In the quarter you’re not too far off the mark here in terms of value gap. I think what you’ve got to bear in mind is within our value gap this quarter power and water was negative, but not extraordinarily negative. And we expect price, particularly in thermal to be much tougher as we work through the backlog for the balance of the year. So you’re correct. The framework was up to $200 million and you’re not far off the mark on the impact in the quarter. Julian Mitchell – Credit Suisse: Okay. And then just on the mix effect, can you just remind us, I guess, what the view is now on wind deliveries for the year and how much more those are ramping up in the back half?

Yeah. So, no change on the framework that I gave you at yearend on wind deliveries. I said that we’d do about 3,000 units and that’s still what we expect to do. In terms of first half, second half, it’s a little bit heavier weighted to the second half of the year. We’ll do I don’t know about 1,800 of those 3,000 in the third and fourth quarter. Julian Mitchell – Credit Suisse: Lastly just quickly, and I guess for Jeff Immelt. On the divestments in Industrial, you talked a little bit about that in the slides. Also in the annual report there was some kind of a commitment or comment around targeting a minimum 10% margin for the Industrial businesses. I just wondered what -- was that equipment plus service combined, and what the timeframe for that 10% minimum threshold was? Because I guess you have some businesses that have never been at 10%.

I think Julian, what I would focus on is the $4 billion number. I think it’s our expectation that -- we’re more active on the divestiture front this year and try to leave it at that. We continue to be tough minded around the portfolio and I would expect our divestures to be a little bit more active this year than they were last. Julian Mitchell – Credit Suisse: Great. Thank you.

The next question comes from Steve Winoker with Sanford Bernstein. Steven Winoker – Sanford C. Bernstein & Company: Just, Rod, while I've got you here -- and I really appreciate the focus in on the business unit during the call. I guess one of the primary debates around Subsea is that production tree order trend starting to rise again in 2015. You addressed your mixed benefit. But this emerging capital discipline by the majors I guess is a real question of even in those more attractive sub segments, to what extent do you think that risks the growth and to what extent also are you seeing the outlook for production tree pricing deteriorate in any way?

If you look at the forecast this year for trees overall globally it’s down, but you have to look at the mix between Brazil and the rest of the world. Brazil is a large buy for a large commitment made for trees in 2013. The rest of the world demand actually increases slightly year-over-year and then you see the total demand back up again or forecast to go back up again in ‘15. But the other thing that you really see is the projects have got larger, so things have got lumpier. You look at the total number of projects that are going for development into the future, there’s less projects but more tree count per project. So I think again the early engagement pre-feed activities and feed activities are really going to be critical to driving some of the efficiency in this area from capital deployment. Steven Winoker – Sanford C. Bernstein & Company: Okay. And the pricing, outlook for pricing?

I think we still feel that pricing -- the demand for the future is still increasing. So it’s really about delivery cycle at this point in time. Steven Winoker – Sanford C. Bernstein & Company: Okay. On Healthcare, the pricing in Healthcare. I guess, Jeff, how should we think about this? Do you see this as any kind of structural change in the industry? Is this a function in the Americas, in North America, of the transition we’re all going through in hospitals? And can you maybe give us some color on how we should think about this?

Steve, I think that’s a good question. I’d say first, if you look outside the U.S, the markets are all normal with Europe bouncing back and the growth markets still pretty strong. I think it’s too soon to say on just the impact of the Affordable Care Act. There’s just so damn much going on in the U.S healthcare market right now. We’re thinking about the next couple of years as being flood to up slightly. So, we are not really thinking much about robust growth and more industry consolidation of hospital systems, more integration between insurers and hospitals. So there’s just a ton going on in the industry. At the same time when you launch a new product like the Revolution CT like we’re launching in the second quarter, it’s going to build a huge backlog. It’s going to have positive growth. And so with all the stuff that’s going on in the industry, when you have new technology, you still can differentiate yourself and you still get good growth and good margins. I think we’re just wait and see and watch how the industry evolves. Steven Winoker – Sanford C. Bernstein & Company: Okay. And I can I just sneak one in for Jeff Bornstein? Or maybe it’s two, I suppose. But this tax rate that we got this quarter, should we think about that us more normalized now? And also were the orders -- have those Algerian orders come through yet in the official order numbers?

Yes. The tax rate -- I think what I said was we still expect the industrials tax rate to be about 20% and we still expect the GE Capital tax rate to be single digits in the year. I don’t think our view of taxes has changed at all for the total year. The Algerian units and the mega deal are in our orders book.

But I think, Steve, if you look at heavy duty gas turbine orders, I think we said in December what, 125 or something like that. I think we are tracking at least to that. This is a slightly improving market is what I would say, broadly speaking.

I want to clear up one thing before we move on to the next question. On energy financing I think Jeff Sprague asked me on gains and energy finance. I think I said 150. It was 120. That’s about 60 higher year over year. That was partly offset by about $100 million of increased higher requirements this year versus last year so I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

We know everyone has a busy morning. Ellen, why don’t we take one more question?

Thank you. Our final question comes from Nigel Cole with Morgan Stanley. Nigel Coe – Morgan Stanley: Thanks. Good morning and thanks for fitting me in. Jeff, you mentioned the H frame, which is obviously a very important product. You mentioned two commitments. Were they US commitments? And then dovetailing on the back of your comments about a gradually improving market, what are you seeing in the US right now in terms of the front-log for 2015 and 2016?

The answer I think to the first question is, No and the answer to the second question I think is just slow improvement in the US, starting with Peakers. We haven’t seen big demand for base load units yet but a ton more interest in the US than we’ve seen in the last few years. That’s the way I would describe it Nigel. Nigel Coe – Morgan Stanley: Okay. Okay, great. Moving on to GECAS, assets are down by about 10% from early last year. And I’m wondering; what do you think is the right level for assets in GECAS? Is there a longer tail of decapitalization within GECAS going forward?

The GECAS business order magnitude is roughly the size over to the context of GE capital and company but it’s probably going to be long-term, plus or minus. They’ll continue to originate, they’ll continue to grow. I talked about their volume in the first quarter being very strong year over year at very attractive returns so they’ll continue to be very active and write new business. At the same time they’ll continue to prune the portfolio they have and that allows them, it creates the capacity for them to continue to be in the market and right volume. Assets year over year I think were flat for GECAS so… Nigel Coe – Morgan Stanley: I think they’re down 8% year over year but I can check that. Then just, Jeff, on the -- you mentioned $1.8 billion run rate for GE Capital for the quarter going forward. That is actually slightly above the $7 billion placeholder for the year. Do you think there is more of an upside bias to that $7 billion at this stage?

Nigel Coe – Morgan Stanley: Understood. Thank you very much.

Great. Thanks, thanks everybody.

Thank you. The replay of today’s webcast will be available this afternoon on our website. We’ll be distributing our quarterly supplemental data for GE Capital later today. I have some announcements regarding upcoming investor events. Next Wednesday, April 23 is our 2014 annual share owners meeting in Chicago. We hope to see you there. On Wednesday may 21, Jeff Immelt will present the 2014 EPG conference and finally our second quarter 2014 earnings webcast will be on Friday July 18. As always we’ll be available today to take questions. Thank you.

This concludes your conference call. Thank you for your participation today. You may now disconnect.