Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the MetLife Second Quarter 2016 Earnings Release Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. Before we get started, I would like to read the following statement on behalf of MetLife. Except with respect to historical information, statements made in this conference call constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws including statements relating to trends in the company's operations and financial results, and the business and the products of the company and its subsidiaries. MetLife's actual results may differ materially from the results anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of risks and uncertainties including those described from time to time in MetLife's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including in the Risk Factors section of those filings. MetLife specifically disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement whether as a result of new information, future developments, or otherwise. With that, I would like to turn the call over to John Hall, Head of Investor Relations.

Thank you, Greg. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to MetLife's second quarter 2016 earnings call. On this call, we will be discussing certain financial measures not based on generally accepted accounting principles, so-called non-GAAP measures. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures and related definitions to the most directly comparable GAAP measures may be found on the Investor Relations portion of metlife.com, in our earnings release, and on our quarterly financial supplements. A reconciliation of forward-looking financial information to the most directly comparable GAAP measures is not accessible because MetLife believes it's not possible to provide a reliable forecast of net investment and net derivative gains and losses, which can fluctuate from period to period and may have a significant impact on GAAP net income. Now, joining me this morning on the call are Steve Kandarian, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; and John Hele, Chief Financial Officer. Also here with us today to participate in the discussions are other members of senior management. After prepared remarks, we will have a Q&A session. In fairness to all participants, please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. With that, I'd like to turn the call over to Steve. Steven Albert Kandarian - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, John, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we reported second quarter operating earnings per share of $0.83. Adjusting for notable items, operating earnings were $1.27 per share, which compares to $1.51 per share on the same basis in the prior year period. Two reserve actions account for much of the operating earnings pressure: $161 million relating to our variable annuity actuarial assumption review and $257 million from modeling improvements in the reserving process, mostly for our book of universal life policies with secondary guarantees. Compared to a year ago, foreign currency, equity…

Thank you. Your first question comes from the line of Jimmy Bhullar from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. I had a couple of questions related both to the charge and the VA business. So first, how does the charge affect your view of capital? I realize it's a GAAP charge, not a staff charge, and it basically had a positive, but how does it affect your view of your capital? And then secondly, how does the charge affect just your view of the earnings power of the annuity business? If you think about earnings in the last three years, I think they have been pretty consistent on an annual basis, between $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion, and the size of the charge relative to earnings is pretty large. But how do you think about the earnings power of the annuity business, given this charge? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Hi, Jimmy. This is John. In terms of the statutory reserves, you saw there was a small release. Statutory capital, which is at CT90, has a slightly smaller change, but that – the companies have good RBCs right now for that. I'd like to just caution that changes to statutory reserves are not the true determinant of overall capital. There's a variety of factors and looking forward, when Brighthouse is separated, it'll be a standalone company, not part of a broader diversified MetLife. So those will have to be – as we file our S-1 or Form 10, you'll see more details as to the capitalization of Brighthouse as a standalone company. In terms of the earnings power, the earnings power is operating earnings and those are based on the fees of the base benefits. And we see fees sort of leveling off a bit here. You saw us report on the statutory that the VA fees are sort of leveling off because the total balances we're seeing some negative flows. So I think you'll see that staying more steady going forward.

Your next question comes from the line of Seth Weiss from Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. John, wanted to dig into the charge a little bit more. And it sounds to me like at a high level, that the charge could be split between partial what's an assumption review, but also moving from this accounting standard of the insurance SOP 03-1, so the embedded derivative convention. So if we try to bifurcate that $1.5 billion of policyholder charges between what's assumption changes and what's a change in the accounting standard, can you help us think how we would split that? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: It's a great question, but it's very difficult to do because we have changed several assumptions, so if you lower annuitization which we did and increase dollar-for-dollar, that's assumption of what people are doing, but then the accounting changes it as well. And so it's interrelations between all these the actuaries, call it, the cross effect and it's a pretty big number. So if I give you one piece but there's a big cross effect in how they all add up and we can't reattribute the cross effect to it. So it's a little misleading to just look at one piece of it. They're all interrelated as you do all of these, and so in the end, it's really the total number that we have to communicate.

Okay. And then maybe just... John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: But you can see the increase to the FAS 133 reserves. It's a significant increase and it's most of that $1.5 billion.

Okay. And just maybe back into the economics of it all. You gave four points as to what the policyholder behavior assumption changes were, and it just seemed, I guess, taking the simplified view, that if you increase the dollar-for-dollar utilization, that tends to be bad news for a charge, and conversely, if you increase the annuitization uptake, that tends to be positive to the business. I'm not sure if I'm reading that correctly, but I guess my question is two-fold there. Is that correct, do I have the right read on that, and why is that the case? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: So, we lowered the number that take annuitizations based on our experience and increased – particularly at older ages, we're seeing more people taking dollar-for-dollar, and in particular in qualified plans. Now, how these things interact with each other depend upon the future fund performance and where interest rates are. So you could see under GAAP, which for dollar-for-dollar used the fair value accounting which assumes much lower returns for separate accounts and interest rates. There's a cost to that. Whereas in statutory, which assumes a mean reversion of interest rates and separate our account returns that are reflecting equity markets that are in, say and call it, more normal, is actually a decrease in reserve. So there's a switch-over point here between what happens to economic assumptions between the ultimate costs of these. And why is that? Well, the dollar-for-dollar becomes a cost if you run out of money in your account and then you trigger the guarantee. If you have okay investment performance, you may not trigger the guarantee. You'll have enough money in your account for a long period of time. If your separate accounts are earning 1.36%, you're going to run out of money and you have more people triggering the guarantees. So it's a combination of these two. And where all this ends up will likely be some place in between these. So it'll depend upon what policyholders do as well as what equity markets are and what interest rates are.

Okay. Great. Thanks a lot.

Your next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb from Barclays. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning. On the third quarter actuarial assumption review, do you have any perspective in terms of the potential magnitude of that impact? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: We did accelerate not only the policyholder behavior review, but also the economic assumption review, and the risk margin review for the VA business, which is a very large book-of-business relative to the total risk profile of MetLife. The other reviews that we do every year on mortality and morbidity and the other blocks of business will just have to wait until we get there. But if you look back over MetLife's history, those tend to be more modest.

That's helpful. Thanks, John. Also, based on the timing of the filing of the S-1 or Form 10 for Brighthouse, should we be expecting any share buybacks in 2016? Steven Albert Kandarian - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: As I mentioned in my remarks – it's Steve here – our first order of business is to work on the separation and make sure we have a clear understanding about capitalization of Brighthouse, the form of the separation. Once we get through that, we will focus on the issue of how we'll use any remaining excess capital. So we are not at that point yet, where we can really speak to when share repurchases may begin.

I appreciate that, Steve. Post the transaction, would you still anticipate that Met can meet its targeted goals of return of capital as a percentage of earnings? Steven Albert Kandarian - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Our philosophy hasn't changed. Our accelerating value initiative is based upon driving up, among other things, the ratio of free cash flow to total operating earnings, and we think this separation plan, as well as expense initiative that we just announced, goes to that as well. And we've also said philosophically many times that excess capital belongs to our shareholders, that's in the form of dividends, share repurchases and any acquisitions that make strategic sense that are accretive to shareholders over time.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Tom Gallagher from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My first question is, just thinking about the third quarter review. John, you had already mentioned the $300 million separation-related charge due to lack of a diversification benefit. But as you think about anything else or areas to watch out for, can you highlight any particular areas, whether that's goodwill or DAC that we should be focused on, where the review will come under more scrutiny in 3Q? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Well, there will be two things going on in the third quarter just to clarify. There will be our annual assumption review for other than variable annuities and then there's the re-segmentation. And both can have an impact, as I've said historically, MetLife other than for variability annuities, the assumption review has been more modest. And the re-segmentation we've highlighted for you what we've seen already in terms of the re-segmentation of the diversification for universal life and variable life not having the diversification credit across all of MetLife. And we will be checking our goodwill in the third quarter, but I can't give you any insight into that until we get all that work done.

Okay. And then the follow-up is you'd mentioned after the re-segmentation occurs, there's going to be an adverse effect. You mentioned the charge, but is there also going to be an ongoing adverse effect on the operating results? Is there going to be a lower level of operating earnings from the variable annuity business and the life insurance business, and how should we think about that? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yes, I did say that we expect there could be some ongoing impacts, but we won't be able to clarify that for you until we get to the third quarter.

Okay. Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Krueger from KBW. Please go ahead. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Hi. Thanks. Good morning. First, on the cost saves, the $1 billion gross amount, are there any reinvestment assumptions that would net to a lower amount, other than the $200 million of stranded overhead? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yes. Ryan, there will be investments. We are still working out the details of those and as we develop our plans in more detail, we'll share with you really the net impacts. By the time we get to 2019, we expect almost all that to be falling through to the bottom line. But there will be investments. We did the $1 billion saves in 2012 and there was a lot of reorganizing that this next set will be really quite a structural and an investment in processing and efficiencies such as you saw the CSC announcement that we did. So this next $1 billion will take some investment to get the long-term cost saves but we do plan to have this flow through to the bottom line end of 2019 run rate, which will be 2020 going forward. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Okay, got it. And then on corporate segment, I guess, you're at $411 million of year-to-date losses, which is higher than the $500 million to $700 million full year expectation you had. Can you give us any update on how to think about the corporate setting going to the second half of the year? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah, so this quarter was higher. We had lower VII which impacted it, just happened to be the assets that were there. The alternative investments were lower. And then taxes had an impact in the quarter there. Corporate is used to level out taxes for the year and we had to take a charge to level out the tax rate for the year. So those are more one-time. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Okay. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Suneet Kamath from UBS. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Just wanted to follow up on the expense savings of $1 billion. How should we think about that splitting between the separated company and old MetLife? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: This will all be for RemainCo.

Okay, got it. And then as we think, I guess for Steve, about the ROE of the company, I know there's lots of moving pieces, but by our calculation, you're somewhere in the 9%, maybe 9.5% range on a normalized basis, and I think in the past, you've talked about 11% as a target. I guess I'm just trying to understand what kept us from 9% and change up to 11% in this low interest rate environment? Steven Albert Kandarian - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Suneet, the things you've heard about over the last couple quarters, including the separation of the U.S. Retail business, as well as the expense initiative that we just announced, are all related to driving that ROE number back up to a range that we like to see it at.

And is that range still around 11% or... Steven Albert Kandarian - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Well, we'll talk to you more about ranges at Investor Day in December.

Okay. Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Berg from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. John, would you just remind us briefly all the choices that customers have at the end of the waiting period for the GMIB? You mentioned, of course, that they can annuitize at the end of the waiting period. But under your most popular contract forms that you've written over the years, what are the other paths that a customer could take, besides annuitization? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Okay. So, although it does vary by contract, the GMIB has, after a 10-year waiting period, the ability to take your balance and get an annuity to be paid for life, based on your benefit base, not on your account balance. And you get the greater of current annuity rates or guarantees of annuity rates that do have a setback in. And that's with a benefit base or your current account balance at current annuity rates. But you can also then, for many of the contracts, not take that option and instead elect dollar-for-dollar, which is almost like a WB benefit for life. And if you run out of your dollar-for-dollar money by taking up to your percentage allowed, if your account balance is zero, then you get an annuity for life. So that almost gives you the same thing, and we're seeing less people take annuitization options and more people elect dollar-for-dollar, particularly as they age and more in qualified plans. There's another feature that I spoke about that allows sort of a refund of your initial premiums paid, the first, I think, 120 days. We call it the (52:39) principal option. You can surrender your rider and get this top-off of money to be your premiums paid, but you lose then your other benefits of the other rider features for it. And then, you can always surrender your contract for cash at any time. There's no waiting period, but you have a surrender charge for the first typically five years to seven years, depending upon the contract.

And I have one second and final question regarding universal life. I'm trying to understand better than I do why this matter of looking at things on a policy-by-policy basis would lead to a reserve increase in universal life. And the reason I ask the question is, life insurance companies are always dealing with groups of policies, cohorts, averages. There's no reason to think that using an averaging method, rather than a policy-by-policy approach, would lead to a bias of overstatement or understatement. So why is, if you follow my question, it is – why is going with a – I understand that going with a policy-by-policy approach is more precise than using an average, but why would it necessarily lead to – why didn't the average work, and why did it lead, in other words, to a reserve deficiency, this averaging approach? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Within the cohorts that were being modeled before, there was a much wider variation than the average within the cohort. So, although there was an average amount of premiums paid within a group, there was a much bigger percentage of people paying the minimum, versus people paying a higher amount. And so we were underestimating the number of policyholders that will trigger the guarantees, and then trigger them sooner. So it's just a wider dispersion. But if you're going policy-by-policy, it came out to be a more precise calculation than the average way that was being done previously.

I got it. Thanks very much. John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: In terms of – to put the charge into perspective, the universal life piece of the charge, the $257 million was about $200 million, and that's about 1.6% of the total reserves for universal life with (54:53) guarantees. It's about $12.5 billion. So it is a true-up of reserves. It's a better method to calculate it, which we do from time to time. But in terms of perspective, it's not that material of a change.

That's helpful. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Randy Binner from FBR. Please go ahead. Randy Binner - FBR Capital Markets & Co.: Thanks. Actually, just two questions, one follow-up there, with Eric's question. Are there any other major blocks that need to be migrated to these more granular systems? This is in regard to the SGOL, just wondering if we might see similar reserve charges, if you continue this, what I think is a technology migration. John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: No. This is one of the biggest and most complex areas. And of course, lower interest rates has made this a larger reserve needed as universal life with lifetime secondary guarantees. Lower rates have made these contracts to be more valuable to their customers and therefore, we've had to increase the reserves on them. Randy Binner - FBR Capital Markets & Co.: Great. And then back to the main VA charge, I'm just trying to think, at a higher level, it seems like, once people exhaust their separate account, you have a cliff effect where the swap rate becomes your discount rate, rather than the mean reversion assumptions under STAT. And I think I'm saying that right, but if that is the case, then can you size what percentage of people you think in that overall VA block were going to continue to monitor at Brighthouse are expected to exhaust their separate account, and therefore be exposed to the 10-year swap as a discount rate? John C. R. Hele - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Right. Well, we're seeing less people annuitize. If you annuitize, you don't pick dollar-for-dollar. So less people annuitize, more people pick dollar-for-dollar. But the actual calculations are highly complex. We run tens of thousands…

We're at the top of the hour. We're going to bring the call to a close. Thank you to everyone for joining us today. Have a good day.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference for today. Thank you for your participation and for using AT&T Executive Teleconference. You may now disconnect.