Welcome to Marsh & McLennan Companies' Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. First Quarter 2018 financial results and supplemental information were issued earlier this morning. They are available on the company's website at www.mmc.com. Please note that remarks made today may include forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to risk and uncertainties, and a variety of factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by such statements. For more detailed discussion on those factors, please refer to our earnings release for this quarter and to our most recent SEC filings, including our most recent Form 10-K, all of which are available on the MMC website. During the call today, we may also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. For reconciliation of these measures to most closely comparable GAAP measures, please refer to the schedule in today's earnings release. I'll now turn this over to Dan Glaser, President and CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thanks, Mindy. Good morning and thank you for joining us to discuss our first quarter results reported earlier today. I'm Dan Glaser, President and CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies. Joining me on the call today is Mark McGivney, our CFO; and the CEOs of our businesses, John Doyle of Marsh; Peter Hearn of Guy Carpenter; Julio Portalatin of Mercer; and Scott McDonald of Oliver Wyman. Also with us this morning is Dan Farrell of Investor Relations. Before I review our results, I'd like to make some comments on the current environment. We are living in an age of disruption, but it is also an age of possibility. At Marsh & McLennan, we are well positioned to make a difference for our clients as they navigate in increasingly dynamic and complex world. Companies are…

Thank you. And we'll go to Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.

Hi. Good morning. My first question when looking at your International business within Marsh, obviously a tough comp there this quarter which you guys highlighted. Just when you think about your 3% to 5% organic growth outlook for the full year and you benefit from some easier comps in the next three quarters, you see the growth improving kind of sequentially as we go throughout the year or how do you envision just the growth internationally and maybe if you could just also comment about what you see within EMEA as well? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thanks, Elyse, and good morning. I'll start with it and I'll hand over to John. If you go back five, six and seven years ago, consistently, International outperformed the U.S. International has still been tremendous performer for us on the top line. The difference is that the U.S./Canada division largely recovered and now is kind of neck and neck and sometimes actually outperforms on the top line from our International division. I'm not sure we're going to get into how we think about future quarters and what can happen because the world is so dynamic. But John, you want to add some to Elyse's question? John Q. Doyle - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Good morning, Elyse. Maybe I'll talk about growth overall and then drill down a bit on International. Overall, we grew 6% in the quarter when you include the impact of M&A. And as Mark and Dan both mentioned, the underlying growth rate for Marsh was 2% in the quarter, and though I expect stronger growth for Marsh, we did have a strong start to the year in 2017. U.S. did have a solid start to the year pretty much across the board. We also…

Yes. In terms of Consulting, I know – try not to get fixated on one quarter but the margin expansion was about 10 basis points if we exclude the impact of rev rec. You guys printed a pretty strong 5% organic. So, just I would have expected maybe the margin expansion would have been a little bit higher this quarter. Can you just comment anything beneath the numbers and, I guess, some quarterly variability you pointed out in the back three quarters, but just how you see the margin expansion for that business just on an overall basis going forward? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Sure. And as you know, we've expanded margins in Consulting quite considerably over a number of years. As we said before, margin expansion for us is an outcome of our discipline to grow revenue in excess of expense over long periods of time. It's not going to happen every quarter. And in the first quarter, as you mentioned, Consulting was good on growth but light on margin expansion and we would take the trade-off of near-term margin impact to position us for future growth much as we've been doing over the last couple of years. And we do that all while we deliver strong operating income growth. So, in Mercer last year, we highlighted investments in areas such as Thomsons and Mercer Marketplace 365. These are growth areas, but they still represent some margin headwind as the scale continues to build in those businesses. In OW, we've been making investments in people and digital capabilities. We've also had a couple of small acquisitions that have a moderate negative impact on margin. But in our belief they improve our capabilities over the longer term. So, I just want to emphasize that we will continue to invest for growth and some of those actions periodically will have an impact on margin. Our focus is on growing operating earnings. Consulting grew NOI by 10% in the quarter, and they've averaged 10% NOI growth over the last five years. And so, that's where our primary focus is as opposed to margin. Next question please.

We'll go next to Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Thank you, and good morning. So, your 3% to 4% like a 4% overall organic growth right in the middle of the fairway of your full-year guidance, but there are some bright spots I want to touch upon, and can you provide more detail about Guy Carpenter like a pretty strong 7% growth, as well in Mercer, Health seems like increase a lot, like 7%, can you provide more detail on this? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. Absolutely. So, first, we are pleased with the top line in the first quarter. I mean, clearly, we like Marsh growing more, but bearing in mind that they grew 5% in the first quarter last year. But the other three of our operating businesses all grew better in the first quarter of 2018 than in 2017, Guy Carpenter, 7% versus a 4%; Mercer 5% versus a 3%; and OW 6% versus a 4%. So, to us it's a good top line start to the year. But, Peter, why don't we talk about Guy Carpenter first? Peter Hearn - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah, Dan. We're very pleased with Guy Carpenter's performance in the first quarter. As you said, it's 7% underlying growth in Q1 over a strong comparable of 4% in Q1 2017. The Q1 growth benefited from a combination of continued strong new business growth, as well as from the overall rate environment. And we continue to have strong pipelines with new business opportunities throughout the year. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thanks, Peter. Julio? Julio A. Portalatin - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thank you. Mercer had a solid performance across all lines of…

We'll go next to Sarah DeWitt with JPMorgan.

Good morning. I just wanted to follow up on your comments on P&C insurance pricing. We've now heard Chubb and Travelers say on their earnings call that pricing has accelerated and they saw an acceleration month-by-month during the quarter. I just want to get your thoughts. Do you agree with that assessment and what's your outlook going forward? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Well, we're talking about relatively low numbers and I'll hand off to John to give it some more depth. But these are very low-single digits in both directions. And so from that standpoint, it's not – it doesn't seem to be that there's a significant amount of momentum. And there are some structural reasons why carriers have higher levels of growth rates than what we would show, but John, you want to get into that a little bit? John Q. Doyle - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Sarah, overall, I would characterize the market as stable. We saw rate change – an increase in rates just under 1% in the quarter, which was actually slightly less than what we observed in the fourth quarter. In the fourth quarter, we did observe a month to month uptick in pricing. We did not see that in the first quarter on our portfolio. Casualty pricing was down nearly 2% in the first quarter really driven by work comp where prices are under some pressure. Property was up just under 3% and the fourth quarter rates were up nearly 4%. Of course, in cat exposed property with HIM losses are – those accounts are experiencing more significant increases. FINPRO pricing, financial lines pricing was up almost 2% in the quarter which was up a bunch – or up compared to relatively flat result in the fourth…

Yes. Yeah. If I could have one follow-up. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure.

Just on the UK market review, I guess, we feel like we've heard a little less complaining from the insurance companies about the brokers lately and just want to see if there was any developments on that front. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. I mean, first of all, it's still in ongoing review. So, we're not going to comment in any great depth. As we said before, insurance companies and brokers have a love-hate relationship and we've been complaining to each other pretty equally over the last 50 years. So, I don't think much has changed. The softer the market the higher levels of complaints about brokers; and the harder the market the more brokers are complaining about carriers and their lack of supply. So, ultimately, I think, this is kind of business as usual in terms of activity between brokers and insurance companies. Next question, please.

We'll go next to Arash Soleimani with KBW. Arash Soleimani - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Thanks. Just to start, I just wanted to ask with the MMA, are you seeing any change in the competitive landscape there post-tax reform? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: I'll take it and I'll hand off to John if there's any follow-up. But no, we're not seeing any change. But bear in mind we're not – we don't view ourselves as a competitor to PE. So the changes in tax reform that have maybe a more significant impact on PE returns really don't impact us. Our primary competitor is whether an agency is staying private or not. We generally don't participate in auctions and we virtually never compete against PE for one of the companies in the MMA space. But, John, do you have anything to add to that? John Q. Doyle - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: We've earned a reputation of being a good buyer that leads to some really terrific conversation. So, we remain quite active in the market, obviously we're looking for high-quality assets that are good cultural fit and they're growth oriented. And it's typically in the middle market or the SME segment not exclusively. But we're quite active in conversations not just in the United States, but all around the world. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thanks. Any other question, Arash? Arash Soleimani - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Yeah. Just one other quick one, you mentioned the Japan renewals at April 1 being flat. Looking ahead to June 1, do you see -because you had a lot of loss impacted business renewing there, do you see some maybe upward momentum in rates there or do you think we could see further rate erosion? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: That's primarily a reinsurance question. So, I'll hand it over to Peter. Peter Hearn - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. Arash, obviously, we don't have enough data points yet to determine what's going to happen in Florida. But if I use one-one as a guide, I think that you'll see very much of a customized approach where those accounts that have sustained loss will probably have a drive toward rate increase and those that don't, I'd imagine with the abundance of capital that's in the market, prices will remain flat. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thanks, Peter. Peter Hearn - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: It's too early to talk... Arash Soleimani - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Thanks very much. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Next question, please. Arash Soleimani - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Thank you. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure.

We'll go to Paul Newsome with Sandler O'Neill. Jon Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP: A little bit of a follow-up on the M&A, I just want to ask sort of more broadly about any updated thoughts on acquisitions for Marsh, not just in the agency business, but broadly and just trying to figure out in our own models just what kind of revenue impact that might have prospectively. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. As we said before, we don't have a budget around acquisitions, although we are active. We have lots of conversation, as John was saying. We are definitely viewed as not only a top-tier company, a blue-chip company, but also a fair acquirer. We do what we say and we don't like renegotiate after the closing. We actually follow through with the team. And we believe, fundamentally, the chemistry and the quality of people on the other side are the most important factor. The economics, we can figure out if there's a meeting of the minds between both parties. And so, our philosophy is that we have no budget or timetable. Quality is the number one thing that we focus on. We prefer companies growing faster and that are trading below our multiple and where we have really good chemistry. And, actually, we seek acquisitions that will improve MMC broader, deeper, better, in terms of capabilities or segmentation. And I'm happy to say both in the RIS segment, particularly Marsh. And in the Consulting segment, we see a number of opportunities. It's a rich pipeline, but that doesn't mean we'll be closing a lot of deals. We also are a meticulous acquirer. We dig in deeply and we really want to understand the business and so we don't do many…

We'll go next to Mike Zaremski with Credit Suisse.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks. Dan, one of the – in the prepared remarks, you talked about a number of kind of corporate concerns and you didn't mention cyber security. I know the cyber insurance gets a lot of air time. And we know there's probably not as much broking capacity today as there will be down the road. But I was curious about the fast growing cyber security consulting side of the equation. Is that an area Marsh is able to assist clients and capitalize on? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Absolutely. I mean, at the end, we start with Risk, right, and Insurance whether it's regular P&C insurance or more specifically cyber insurance is an outcome and is a partial solution. But we really help clients evaluate risk on a broader basis and cyber is no different than that. So, it's about identification and mitigation, avoidance and also risk management in cyber and then it's about what kind of risk transfer makes sense. And so, I would say all four of our operating companies is involved in cyber on one basis or another. In regard to the retail clientele of corporations, obviously, we've got significant capability on the Consulting side within Marsh, but also transactional capability. But don't forget about Oliver Wyman. Oliver Wyman has significant evaluation capability within cyber, and those are growing businesses for us overall. I'd like to point out that we believe that there will be spurred growth over the next several years in the EU as a result of GDPR, which we think it'll be a big driver because there's mandatory breach notification. And cyber insurance is some element of mitigant around the risk. And so, we do believe the pickup levels because, to-date, if we look back over the last several years, I'd say, the last few years, 90% of the cyber premium in the world has been the United States. It ain't 90% of the cyber-attacks. And so, from that standpoint – the other point that I would just want to make because it's some issues that we were tackling when we were all in Davos, is that the threat is not only to data, I mean, the vectors of attack are changing and we see the possibility of physical assets, as well as bodily injury and loss of life. So, this is not just a property issue and a business interruption issue, this is also potentially a casualty issue as well. But do you have a follow-up question, Mike?

Yeah. One follow-up, the Investment Management & Related growth picked up again, and I was just curious, is there a tie-in to the appreciation of the capital markets because the markets, as you guys note, didn't increase in 1Q, but organic did increase. So, just kind of maybe some color on what's going on there. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Thanks. Julio, you want to take that? Julio A. Portalatin - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thank you. Demand for our Investment Management delegated solutions business continues to be strong. The trajectory is strong. We're continuing to fund the assets that we have sold through – on behalf of our clients on a fund-to-fund basis. We have a double-digit growth. We now have over $240 billion, as I mentioned, assets under delegated management. We're really proud of the work that we're doing both in our investment consultancy and our DB actuaries because the DB business helps us. Helps us form that continuum for our clients as they think about how they match assets and liabilities. And so, we continue to see success there. Most of our success in the first quarter was actually new funding that came from client wins that we had over the months prior to. As you know, we don't want to sit here and depend on market performance we can't control that. So, what we do depend on is strong pipelines, strong conversion, great value proposition, and ultimately good results. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thanks. Next question please, operator.

We'll go next time to Yaron Kinar with Goldman Sachs. Yaron Kinar - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Good morning, everybody. Just want to follow-up on pricing. You'd mentioned that there are some structural differences between how you calculate pricing and the way that the carriers do. I guess, one thing I wanted to get a better understanding of was when you look at pricing do you try to adjust for changing terms and conditions, whether it's changing deductibles, attachment points, exclusions, et cetera. And do carriers do that as well by the best of your understanding? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: It's a good question and I remember my days of a carrier and that's one of the – those loosey areas that certain carriers do a lot of adjusting based upon terms and conditions or deductible change. And that's where some gaming may take place here and there where deductible goes from $100,000 to $500,000 and somebody gives a 15% credit as a result. And somebody else might give no credit because it's a catastrophe type of exposure. But, John, you want to take that? John Q. Doyle - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: We do attempt to adjust for certain changes in terms and conditions, so deductible or attachment point certainly being one of them, we do adjust for that where we can see direct correlation between certain exposure elements to pricing, we'll do that as well. But as Dan noted, it could account for some of the differences as well. We don't know the increased limit factors, for example, that an insurer would use as opposed to kind of how we see it. So, I'm sure that could account for some of the difference as well. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh &…

And we'll go next to Brian Meredith with UBS.

Yeah. Just quickly, following up on that, was there an impact on earnings in the quarter from FX, I know you said they're de minimis on margins? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. So, we would be in line, because there is no margin impact, we'd expect it would be in line with what we saw in revenue.

The lift you saw in revenue? Great. Thanks. And then my second question, I'm just curious on the organic revenue growth at Guy Carpenter, was there any of that growth that would call it one-time in nature of like capital market transactions. I know there was a lot of cap on issuance in the quarter. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Well, as John and Julio and my ex-boss used to say, it's only one time if you don't do it again. So, cat bond has – cat bonds are individual but we are in a cat bond business and the ILS business, so we would expect to see activity quarter-after-quarter in that. But, Peter, you want to take that? Peter Hearn - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. I mean, we had two cat bonds in the quarter, Brian, and last year we did 11, the year before that, we did 9. It's been pretty consistent our involvement in the alternative capital space and particularly in the ILS part.

We'll go next to Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research.

Hi. Thanks. I just wanted to drill down a little bit more on the Consulting side. Looking at the OpEx line, I know you mentioned that expense has been somewhat elevated. But it looks like the past couple of quarters it's been running call it $50 million to $70 million higher than the level that it kind of had been averaging. I guess I'm just trying to understand how long should we expect that magnitude of investment to persist? Thanks. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. I think there is a couple of things, one, if you look at the seasonality question that Mark was alluding to in his script, I mean, some of that plays out over the last couple of years. I wouldn't say that there is significantly higher level of investment in Consulting than there has been in the past. We tend to try to marry up revenue growth with expense growth. And so, what you'll see if you go quarter-by-quarter over the last several years is in quarters where we have higher revenue growth, you see higher expense growth. And so, it's not surprising that in a quarter where we have good top line in both Oliver Wyman and Mercer, we have some expense lift associated with it partly because a lot of our variable comp is driven by the top line in terms of how we fund the variable comp. We're looking at top line and bottom line effects on that. But in terms of underneath your question a little bit, and I want to talk a little bit about the seasonality that we alluded to for the second and third quarters, if you look at the expense growth for – well, first, if you go back to this year – this time last year, the first quarter of 2017, we stated in our scripts that we expected some weakness in the top line as we looked forward over the second and third quarter at that point in time. And so, therefore, we started taking expense actions to run the place pretty tight in our anticipation of a shorter top line. And if you look at Marsh as an example as expense growth in the second quarter of last year was a 1% level and then the third quarter on Mercer was minus 2%. And so, in some ways, in our second and third quarter in 2018, we're going to get back to a normal expense pattern. And so, therefore, you're going to see some expense lift just in the basis of the comparisons versus the year before.

Okay. That's helpful. Yeah. Just one more, I guess, on – and I guess, thinking about EMEA organic, you've done a couple different size acquisitions, I think, in the UK, Bluefin, Jelf. And I think we've crossed over to a point where those are now in the organic number. I'm just curious, one way or another, are those deals having kind of directionally the same impact on organic as what we're seeing for the entire segment or is there a different story going on in terms of what you're seeing in the UK on those deals that you've completed? Thanks. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: So, both Jelf and Bluefin and the combination of Jelf and Bluefin are performing as we expected on organic. Now to be fair, we want to see more organic from Jelf and Bluefin in the future but those acquisitions are not the cause of the weakness in the UK or in EMEA. I think it's more of a phenomena of the economy in the UK as well as the competitiveness and aggressiveness in the London market in specialty and in wholesale and so we're seeing some deep downdrafts on some business in those areas.

We'll go next to Adam Klauber with William Blair. Adam Klauber - William Blair & Co. LLC: Thanks. Good morning. Did the economy helped the U.S. brokerage business more this year than last year? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. It's one of those things. We're talking about generally low levels of GDP growth in the U.S. It is mildly better. I think exposure units will be a benefit to our growth as we go forward. But you have to look at the mix of business, the competitive environment between brokers, but it is fair to say exposure unit as shown in values, in shipments, in payrolls are trending mildly up from where they've been. But there's not any dramatic change economic benefit or lift in 2018 versus 2017. It's kind of business as usual. Adam Klauber - William Blair & Co. LLC: Okay. John Q. Doyle - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: The only thing I would add Dan... Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah, just one, John... Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: The only thing I would add that our clients are also trying to grind out earnings growth in a low growth world as well and so they're structuring their programs accordingly, right. So we're working with them to try to match their costs. Adam Klauber - William Blair & Co. LLC: Okay. Then also in Europe, are you seeing any difference or is it pretty flat from an economic standpoint? John Q. Doyle - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: No, I think it's fairly flat there as well. Adam Klauber - William Blair & Co. LLC: Okay. Thanks a lot. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Thanks. Operator, I think we're coming to the end of the call. If we have one more question we would take it, otherwise I would – so, where are we, Mindy?

I will turn it back to Dan Glaser for any additional or closing remarks. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, thank you to everybody for joining us on the call today. I'd like to thank our clients for their support and our colleagues for their hard work and dedication in serving them. Have a good day.

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