Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Genworth Financial's Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Lauren, and I will be your coordinator today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of this conference call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. Also, we ask that you refrain from using cell phones, speaker phones or headsets during the Q&A portion of today's call. I would now like to turn the presentation over to Amy Corbin, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Corbin, you may proceed.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Genworth's fourth quarter 2015 earnings call. Our press release and financial supplement were released last evening; and this morning, our earnings presentation was posted to our website and will be referenced during our call. We encourage you to review all of these materials. Today, you will hear from our President and Chief Executive Officer, Tom McInerney, followed by Kelly Groh, our Chief Financial Officer. Following our prepared comments, we will open the call up for a question-and-answer period. In addition to our speakers, Kevin Schneider, Chief Operating Officer; and Dan Sheehan, Chief Investment Officer will be available to take your questions. During the call this morning, we may make various forward-looking statements. Our actual results may differ materially from such statements. We advise you to read the cautionary notes regarding forward-looking statements in our earnings release and related presentation as well as the risk factors of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and our quarterly Form 10-Qs as filed with the SEC. This morning's discussion also includes non-GAAP financial measures that we believe may be meaningful to investors. In our financial supplement, earnings release and investor materials, non-GAAP measures have been reconciled to GAAP, where required in accordance with SEC rules. Also, when we talk about the results of our international businesses, please note that all percentage changes exclude the impact of foreign exchange. And finally, references to statutory results are estimates, due to the timing of the filing of the statutory statements. And now, I'll turn the call over to our CEO, Tom McInerney. Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thank you, Amy, and good morning, everyone. Today, I'd like to provide perspectives in three areas. First, progress against our 2015 goals;…

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will begin the Q&A portion of the call. Our first question comes from Ryan Krueger with KBW. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Good morning. First, I was hoping you could provide some color, I know it's early, but how you're thinking about the standalone capital needs of long-term care compared to life and annuities in Runoff. I assume as a standalone entity you would want a higher capital ratio and buffer at long-term care, but maybe a lower one in life and annuity, so any color you can provide there would be helpful. Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Hey, Ryan. It's Kelly Groh. Obviously, it is early days, again as Tom said we're in – we've had discussions with our state regulators on that. The benefit of long-term care, as you know, are the – the needs in long-term care really are reliant on our premium rate increases, and we will be managing the appropriate capital levels for those entities accordingly. We have committed $200 million incrementally to put into Genworth Life Insurance Company to be able to facilitate that separation. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Okay. So is the way to think about it, as you're thinking now that the $200 million from the holding company plus the combined resources of everything in the life businesses would facilitate this? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. There is a variety of steps we would take to affect that transaction, including intercompany reinsurance, but the $200 million from the holding company really represents the majority of the tax payment that we anticipate getting in July. We've had discussions with regulators at this point in time, we…

Our next question comes from Michael Kovac with Goldman Sachs. Mike Kovac - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Great. Thanks. Wanted to walk through some of the RBC changes that we saw in the quarter. It looked like it was down partially from the VA business as you mentioned, but wanted to think kind of your thoughts to buffer at $400 million. How do you think about that relative to potentially repatriating BLAIC with where you stand and also relative to your energy exposure? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. Let me address firstly just the main drivers of the RBC ratio. As I think about the walk on the RBC ratio from about 445%ish to 430% this quarter, about 8 points of the decline really related to the variable annuity assumption review, another five points are kind of our placeholder related to long-term or New York long-time care cash flow testing reserve. And then just about another two points just miscellaneous other in-force items, so in terms of the BLAIC repatriation, we think it's the impact from that is roughly on a consolidated basis maybe 20 points to 30 points of risk-based capital. Oh, and let me turn it to Dan, actually to address the energy stuff, Dan Sheehan, our Chief Investment Officer.

Thanks, Kelly. Just a couple of points that I'd make on energy. One is just a step back for a minute and look at the overall portfolio. We're in a gain position at year end of about $3 billion on the portfolio. The corporate book itself is in about $1.7 billion gain position. So we're starting off in a very good position from a quality or portfolio perspective. Energy, which is under a little bit of stress, is about $4.2 billion. As Kelly mentioned a little less than 6% of the overall portfolio. At this point that book is trading at about $0.98 on the dollar, so a mark of negative $0.78. If you want to talk about what happens in a stress scenario, one-notch downgrade for that entire portfolio would be about a 10 RBC point impact. Mike Kovac - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Thanks. That's helpful. And on long-term care, so you can help us kind of think about the changes that were made in the quarter in terms of thinking about overall rate increases that you're anticipating, did you change the percent of approvals that you expect to get? I saw some comments on page 13 of your presentation that you're getting approvals at a higher rate, that maybe you had anticipated in the past, but did you make a change to that, and can you remind us of where that's running at in your assumptions? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Sure. This is Kelly again. I'll address it. Really from an overall approval percentage, we've been getting roughly 70% to 80% of the filed rate increases based on actuarially justified rate increases. And we really have not changed our expectation of that. Really, there is a few things to think…

Our next question comes from Jimmy Bhullar with JPMorgan.

Hi, good morning. The first question is just around your confidence level in receiving dividends from the U.S. MI business and I think you mentioned 2017 or beyond. But do you realistically expect to get dividends in 2017. And maybe if you could give us some idea on the potential magnitude, is it in the $10 million to $20 million range or could it be $100 million or higher? But just give us some idea on your confidence and the potential magnitude, specifically in 2017? Kevin D. Schneider - Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer: Hi, Jimmy. This is Kevin. We expect to generate sustained statutory earnings coupled with PMIERs compliance to allow for future dividends. As we consider restarting annual dividends in 2017 or later, we think we're well positioned given our financial profile and that includes a low risk to capital, five years of increasing statutory income, PMIERs compliance with a prudent buffer, and I would add compliance generally to the new NAIC Model Act standards. We would assume a low-dividend payout ratio. As we talked about in some of the preparatory remarks, we've continued to reduce our reliance on affiliate assets in our overall capital profile, and we just have a really – as you look through our planning horizon, we have a robust level of statutory assets and capital. As it currently stands in the early years of the reemergence of dividends, it could require extraordinary dividends as opposed to regular ordinary dividends, but we got a relatively good confidence level in our overall profile that we'll be able to work constructively with our regulator, and I would – I can't – on the order of magnitude, I'd say, less than $50 million probably in the early – in the first period growing as we get out beyond the '17 year.

Okay. Thanks. And then on your decision to stop selling life insurance and fixed annuities, your sales haven't been that good to begin with, so I don't think it should have a major impact, but why are you continuing to sell long-term care, and I don't know if that product by selling it, you're better positioned to get rate hikes or not, but maybe just explain your logic on continuing to sell long-term care, but stopping the other product. Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah. Jimmy, it's Tom. On life and annuity, there are 8,000 life companies selling the product, and if you compare Genworth to the top 20 providers, their ratings were much higher. So while we have monitored the sales in the last few quarters, our conclusion is given that rating differential, we just felt we couldn't be competitive, and we obviously don't have the scale that some of the top 20 players have. And by suspending sales, we save the $50 million of expenses that we talked about. In addition, as you know, because of the significant upfront commissions, particularly on life insurance, that has led to significant statutory strain, so by stopping the sales that also will improve statutory earnings. And under the restructuring where we hope to have GLAIC and GLIC now be sister companies versus GLIC owning GLAIC, we would hope that those higher statutory earnings over time will provide a good dividend stream up to the parent. So that's the story on life and annuity. On LTC, unlike life insurance, there is only a dozen or so LTC players, and really if you look at where the sales are coming from, it's the top five players. And we've – we have always been in the top five, we remain in the top five. So we still do believe competitively we can sell long-term care, and there is no question, if you talk to any of the regulators in any of the states, that our commitment to remain in the business and sell, continue to sell LTC, because of the benefits to the state, Medicaid exposures going forward. They have clearly given Genworth, and I think the other players have remained in more premium increases than those that have discontinued sales.

Okay. And then, just lastly, could you remind us, what your interest rate assumption is in your long term care reserves? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. This is Kelly. I'll take that. We actually have that I believe in the slides.

Yeah. I was going through it, I couldn't find it, but... Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Okay. I'm sorry. We may. I'll go ahead and just provide that then, one version of the slides had it at one point. On our PGAAP book, our discount rate is 7.02%, which equals our portfolio rate, on our HGAAP book, it's 5.24% which also equals the portfolio backing our HGAAP product.

But I'm assuming that you can't – new money yields are lower than those numbers, so they seem a little high, like I can understand your in-force yield being high, but as new premiums are coming in new money is got to be a lot lower. Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Well, new money rates obviously right now are a lot lower, just given where the 10-year treasury is trading. We don't have a significant amount of portfolio turnover. If I look at the discount rate on HGAAP last year versus this year, it's roughly stable. Our PGAAP rate went down about 11 basis points. Our HGAAP rate last year was 5.23%, it's actually 5.24% this year, so we haven't seen a significant amount of movement, but obviously we provided you a sensitivity that for a 25 basis point decline in our HGAAP book, I think it would have about a $1.1 billion impact on our $2.5 billion to $3 billion of margin.

And how – like if rates remain where they are, do you expect to review your assumptions sometime later this year, how often would you – or would you do it in the interim, like during the year sometime also? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: We update, for our disabled life reserve, we actually update our interest rate every quarter. For GAAP loss recognition testing, we really do it annually, but given a 25 basis point impact move on a huge portfolio that we have behind our HGAAP product, would be a very dramatic move given the duration of that portfolio. And given the fact that it would only impact the overall margin by $1.1 billion of our $2.5 billion to $3 billion margin, I don't anticipate needing to review it any earlier than our annual process. Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah. And the one last thing I would say on that Jimmy, remember that when we are doing the premium increase request, we are looking for actuarially justified premium increases, and on the old book to get them close to breakeven, to the extent we did over time have a significant decrease in that interest rate, which as Kelly said because of long duration that the rollover isn't as quick as it is on other shorter duration products. We would take that into account when we're filing premium increases in the future to recover that.

Okay. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Suneet Kamath with UBS.

Thanks. Good morning. So just on the separation, the first question is the $200 million that you expect to get in July from the PL reinsurance deal, is what you're saying effectively that will go back into the life insurance sub to – that's what you've committed to putting in to affect the separation? Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah. So Suneet, as Kelly said, under the tax sharing arrangement because of the River Lake I and II, there is $230 million going to the holding company in July. And in our discussions with the regulators, we have committed $200 million of that to basically the GLIC to create more capital. And so, right now that's the basis that we're talking to the regulators on.

Okay. Got it. And then, I guess just philosophically in terms of the separation, I guess the question is why are you pursuing this now versus say a year ago when I would argue, you probably had a lot more flexibility in terms of your stock price, in terms of the macro environment, just curious why now? Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Obviously, over the last two years, we've had a lot of discussions with the regulators focused on the premium increases and their overall view. And we have been talking to them about GLAIC and GLIC, and I think there's been a much more of an openness on the part of regulators to consider that. I think they do understand that we can't go on for much longer with no dividends coming out of the U.S. Life division. So by doing this and having GLAIC and GLIC be sister companies versus GLIC owning GLAIC, and with GLAIC, it has life and annuity business, plus we're going to reinsure the life and annuity from GLIC to GLAIC, and with lower expenses, and no statutory strain on the life and annuity going forward, because we are suspending sales. All of that should lead to better statutory earnings over time and ability to dividend that to its holding company. And I think the regulators appreciate that. We've got a lot of debt in the parent that we can't continue to rely on just Canada and Australia and we are expecting, as Kevin said, U.S. MI to start paying a dividend in 2017, but we said we've got to get some dividends out of the life companies. And so I think, this separation will allow GLAIC to pay dividends, where it can't pay today, because it has to go through GLIC, and GLIC has, as you know, a big negative unassigned surplus. And also, I think the regulators – and part of the premium increase requests – obviously we've been giving them a lot more transparency. I do think the regulators do think that by separating GLAIC and GLIC it also allows them, because it's easier for them to see GLIC's performance and therefore the LTC performance, and it makes them more comfortable in giving the large increases that they've been giving.

Okay. And then just maybe lastly, on the holding company cash flow. The goals for 2016 of $100 million to $150 million of dividends from Canada and Australia, I think is lower than what we were thinking as well as lower than what's been in recent years. I think part of the reason is you're not assuming any special dividends or anything like that. But is there a case to be made for those special dividends to continue? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: We do have excess capital within some of our international subsidiaries. I think they are having calls today as well, and will talk about their capital plans and trying to work within the buffers over their solvency margins. I guess what I think of the $100 million to $150 million definitely does not assume much of special dividends. We had originally announced the Australia IPO, which we benefited $55 million in the fourth quarter. We had originally anticipated that would take a little bit longer than it did and that was really part of our plan, but now, it's part of our holding company cash. As we look forward, when I think about 2017 and 2018, we do have quite a few more sources of dividends just beyond Canada and Australia. Kevin mentioned, U.S. MI and the planned growth in there given statutory earnings and PMIERs compliance. We do have capital optimization absolutely just given the lower level of lending in Australia and the pretty high solvency ratio that they have. The legal entity unstacking that Tom mentioned will provide a source of dividends over time there as well. And then we also have the tax benefits to the holding company that I think will be positive now versus negative before.

Okay sorry, one last one if I could. On the 2018 debt, I think Kelly, in your prepared remarks, you talked about potential for incremental asset sales. So I guess what's left to sell? I mean you've done LPI, you've done the European mortgage, what else would you think about selling? Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Suneet, there are a number of things we can consider. We are continuing to look at life and annuity blocks. At this point, as I think we said last quarter for GMA given its ordinary dividends and its potential for special dividends or share buybacks, we think it's better to hold that than to sell it now given the current prices. So I think if you look at near term at potential asset sales, it's probably more oriented towards perhaps considering some of the blocks in life and annuity.

All right. Thanks.

Our next question comes from Geoffrey Dunn with Dowling & Partners. Geoffrey Murray Dunn - Dowling & Partners Securities LLC: Thanks. This might be just reading too much into your wording, but when you look at your 2016 through 2018 plan for the various MI operations, you vary your commentary between growth and optimization. Can you just clarify what you mean by your optimization of Canada and Australia? Kevin D. Schneider - Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer: Yeah. Geoff, this is Kevin. As we look through our plans over the next couple of years, we absolutely think that the U.S. Mortgage Insurance business is going to continue to provide sustained growth opportunities. So think of the U.S. Mortgage Insurance business as continuing to grow, potentially getting to the point as we expect to be able to kick into the dividend stream in 2017 or later. Australia for the next couple of years, we think we're going to have some depressed top line levels in that market. The regulator is trying to help through some macro prudential means, to cool off the market a little bit and manage the exposure down there to housing. We've seen the same thing happen in Canada over the last several years, and to-date, it has really allowed Canada to sort of have a soft landing and what had at the time been viewed as a really overheated housing market. So, right now, we'd expect and you could see it in with GMA's results for the quarter, which came out. They are going to have some top-line pressure. The biggest consumer of capital in this business is new business, particularly in that market. And so we do expect them to have continued cushions over their targeted solvency levels. Those cushions will allow us the ability to continue to work at appropriate capital management opportunities, all within the constraints of what the regulator in that market and the local board will approve. So we see – I would say Canada or Australia over the next couple of years, going to be some capital management opportunities. Canada still had a decent market, decent top-line growth. And I would expect over the next few years you should probably think about Canada as continuing to grow and take care of share opportunities in the marketplace. But I would expect that to primarily be reliant on special dividends – or, excuse me, ordinary dividends – ordinary dividends in Canada over the next few years, because of the capital will be dedicated to ongoing growth. Geoffrey Murray Dunn - Dowling & Partners Securities LLC: Okay. Great. Thanks for the clarification.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have time for one final question. We'll go next to Steven Schwartz with Raymond James. Steven D. Schwartz - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for taking the questions. Just quickly a number's question Kelly. What was the benefit from benefit reduction for the LTC business for the quarter, you said it was $38 million total with the premium, but what was just the effect on the reserves? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. Steven, the benefit, reserve change benefit was about $55 million in the quarter. So the total benefit from both net premiums and reserve changes in the quarter was $102 million, of which $55 million was the reserve change. Steven D. Schwartz - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: That's okay. That was a slide I didn't understand, so how does that fit with the $38 million, Kelly? Kelly L. Groh - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. Steven, it's up $38 million versus the last quarter. Steven D. Schwartz - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: Got you. Okay. Very good. And then just as an understanding here, you would have – I guess my question is how does this, for Tom, how does the separate in isolation feed in eventually to the split of the companies? Is it this idea that maybe this closed block of fixed annuity and life business will be reinsured somewhere? I mean, there is going to be no operations. You'll have a long term care. I'm just trying to envision what happens after this is done? Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, Steven, in terms of going forward, we still are open to separation of the company, splitting the company. I…

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll now turn the call back over to Mr. McInerney for closing comments. Thomas J. McInerney - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thank you, Lauren, and thanks to all of you for your time and questions today. As we said we're taking significant steps in restructuring our U.S. Life Insurance businesses as well as improve the overall operating and financial performance of the company. We're committed with the sense of urgency that we build shareholder value and will update you on our progress over the quarters this year, and thanks again for your continued interest in Genworth.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes Genworth Financial's fourth quarter earnings conference call. Thank you for your participation. At this time, the call will end.