Welcome to Marsh & McLennan Companies' Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. Second quarter 2008 financial results and supplemental information were issued earlier this morning. They're 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 risks and uncertainties, and a variety of factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by such statements. For a 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 a reconciliation of these measures to the most closely comparable GAAP measures, please refer to the schedule in today's earnings release. During the Q&A session, please limit your questions to one and one follow up. I'll now turn this over to Dan Glaser, President and CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies. Please go ahead. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thank you, Irene. Good morning, and thank you for joining us to discuss our second 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. We balance investing for the long-term with delivering strong performance in the short-term. Doing this requires ongoing investment, disciplined execution and thoughtful capital allocation. Our performance will continue to reflect the compounding benefits of numerous strategic actions…

Thank you. And our first question comes from Ryan Tunis, Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Thanks. Good morning. I guess just thinking about on the Consulting side, it sounds like you're a little bit surprised with what happened with Oliver Wyman. Does that change in any way, I guess, your four-year margin outlook? Are we still right to think though that Oliver Wyman doesn't have quite as much of an impact one way or another on margins? From quarter-to-quarter, I think, that used to be the at least guidance you gave. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. Hi, Ryan. That's true. What we've said in the past is that Oliver Wyman should actually outgrow the aggregate of the other three operating companies over time but with more volatility and that it's more revenue related than earnings related, although it does have an impact on earnings. In good times, we get more earnings; and in rougher times, we don't. It's important to note that Oliver Lyman's five-year CAGR on an underlying basis is 6%. And so it is our strongest grower over the last five years, but there will be periods of volatility. And it's important to isolate – not only for Oliver Wyman, but for Mercer as well. Both Oliver Wyman broadly and Mercer broadly actually are doing very well year-to-date. They have specific issues in businesses, FS in the United States for Oliver Wyman and the DBA business in the U.S. and UK for Mercer. I'm not trying to understate the importance of us dealing with those issues over time, but fundamentally the broad spectrum of what each of our Consulting businesses engage in are doing quite well.

So, I guess, thinking about the full year outlook, it's still for margin expansion. It sounded like you were a little bit – these are my words, but it sounded like you're a little bit more negative about the DB administration, maybe you were – the Oliver Wyman issue. Should we read that to think that there's probably some other areas that you now feel a little bit better about from an organic revenue growth standpoint headed in the back half of the year, and if so, what areas would those be? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: I mean, I think there's plenty of things in Consulting to feel good about. As I was just saying before, the breadth of what we do in Consulting is doing quite well. In fact, I mean, I don't want to make excuses about businesses that are underperforming and we have to find ways of getting value from the DBA business and FS in the United States. Both are actually high quality, strong business with good professional colleagues, and they deliver us quality returns over time. The DB is different because, as we've mentioned before, DB is not a growth business. There is not new business in DB emanating from new DB plans or new DB formation. New business in DB is essentially project work on existing plans. And so that's going to be a declining business over time. Did it decline a bit faster in the first quarter or the first and second quarter than our expectation? First quarter was around our expectation. Second quarter was a little steeper, but that doesn't necessarily make it a trend. We'll just have to see how that goes over time. But when I look at the overall business, there's a lot for us to be excited about and that's why we clearly are saying that we're on track for another solid year. I mean, if I look through six months of this year on an overall company basis, we've grown 4% underlying. It's better than the 3% underlying that we did last year on an overall company basis. And we've done 11% adjusted EPS growth. So we are absolutely on track to deliver a good year with margin expansion for the overall company and with strong adjusted EPS growth. Next question, please?

Next question is from Kai Pan in Morgan Stanley. Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Thank you and good morning. My first question just follow-up on the DBA discussion. We have seen weak organic growth in the segment for about like, let's say, two years now. So, do you think it's a structural issue or it's a competitive issue for you guys? And do you think that when we will possibly reaching a bottom in that? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. No, it is absolutely a structural issue. This is not a cyclical issue. Defined benefit pension plans, I doubt anybody on this call has one that's open. So, these are frozen plans that are essentially in a long-term, 25-30, 35-40 year runoff basis. And so these are declining businesses but of high quality which adds value to other businesses. So, clearly, a benefit in our investment business, which, as you saw, grew 12% this quarter, is its linkage with our DBA business. But the only thing on a market competitiveness would be more along the lines of what's the mix of business and maybe the large accounts sector and certain types operates with more stability than the upper-middle market. That is to be determined over time, but the reality of the DB business is that it's on a long-term declining trend. Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. I do wish I had one open one. My follow-up question is on the Marsh simplification initiatives. So, could you tell us a little bit more about what exactly you're doing? And the $80 million to $100 million like restructuring cost, how much savings we expect from it and how much will be reinvested, and how much will flow through the bottom…

It's from Elyse Greenspan in Wells Fargo.

Hi. Good morning. My first question, you guys posted pretty impressive 8% organic growth in the U.S. and Canada this quarter. I was just wondering if we could get some additional color on what drove that broken out by the U.S. as well as Canada. How significant was MMA contribution to growth, if you could also update us on the size of MMA today? And did the contingence that you accept on a portion of your business – was that a driver of the growth as well? Just any color so we could understand the pretty impressive number. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Elyse, that was a great, single, multipart question. So I hope we – if we don't cover them all, then circle back, and let us know what we've missed. But I'm going to hand off to John in a second. But obviously we're pleased with Marsh's overall growth in the quarter, and Guy Carpenter as well. So, RIS had a strong quarter, and obviously the 8%, we're pleased with as well. John will give you a little bit more color. I don't really want to, quarter-by-quarter, get into sub details of each of the segments within U.S./Canada, but we'll give you something certainly for this quarter. So, John? John Q. Doyle - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure, Dan. So, Elyse, we were pleased with the quarter, as Dan mentioned. The growth in the U.S. and Canada was pretty strong across the board. Marsh in the U.S. had double-digit new business growth. Cyber, transaction risk, construction activity, all contributed favorably to that. Our West Coast operation had a particularly strong quarter as well. In Canada, we had an excellent quarter of growth. MMA, we had pretty consistent growth really around the country. We…

Yeah. My second question on margins. Last quarter, you guys had said that you expected the deterioration in the Q2 to be driven by RIS and then in the Q3 you had tougher expense comps. I'm just trying to tie that together. It does seem like Consulting margins deteriorated a bit more than you would have thought this quarter. So, is, I guess, that still the case? And for your full-year margin improvement, is that going to be driven more by RIS which seems to be running stronger? Are you still expecting margin improvement in both segments for the year? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Let me take that part first. I mean, we haven't given up on the year by any measure in either segment on a margin basis, but certainly margin expansion for the year will be driven by RIS because of its stronger top line performance and some of the dynamics within the business. Now, we see continued opportunity for operating leverage in the future in both segments. Whether it occurs this year or not, we'll just see as time goes on. As we've said before, we focus more on earnings growth. And over the long-term, earnings growth will be more of a function of what we do on the top line than anything else. And so what Mark said last quarter, just to revisit that because seasonality is a little different for us this year, was that last year was a little odd for us. We had anticipated some softer top lines. We really pulled some expense levers. And so in the second quarter of last year, RIS had 0% expense growth. And so we expected RIS's margins to be under pressure for this second quarter. The strong growth that they…

Next question from Larry Greenberg in Janney Montgomery Scott.

Thank you and good morning. Yeah. You just kind of touched on some of what I was going to ask about on Oliver Wyman. But can you frame for us how big the U.S. financial services business is for them on a relative scale? And then are we going back to a more normal environment in terms of regulatory-related work versus a heightened environment a year ago? Can you just give us some color on the environmental factors? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Thanks for the question, Larry, and I'll hand off to Scott in a second, but, I mean, obviously our FS business is a big business because if all the other pieces of Oliver Wyman are doing quite well, and they were negative overall, it shows the size of that business. And all you have to do is read the newspaper, and you realize many financial institutions have sort of gotten out from under the continued high scrutiny regulatory activity that's been the case over the last several years. And so yes, we may be going to a more normalized environment with other growth opportunities with financial institutions but perhaps that's changing. But, Scott, do you want to add some to that? Scott McDonald - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Larry, I'll give you a little more color. I mean, the FS business has always been a great business for us. It's less than 40% of the overall business now, and the U.S. regulatory business is only a part of that. Overall, it's probably less than 10% of the overall Oliver Wyman business. And in Q2, what we saw the end of was really this large wave of stress testing, and recovery, and resolution planning programs that the banks have gone through. And we knew that was coming and we've been actively working to transition to other areas. Those include a number of strategic areas around growth, business evolution, culture organization, technology, digital, advanced analytics, customer experience, as well as a number of replacement risk and regulatory focus, things like cyber risk, liquidity risk, financial crimes and combat. And we're pretty optimistic about that transition. We've done that many times over the last 30 years, but it's going to take us a few quarters. And as we go through that process, I think, there will be some volatility in the results. But once we finish that, I think, we'll be back on track. We're still targeting. We're still very confident in generating mid- to high-single-digit growth for the business as a whole. So, I think there has been a structural change there but that's nothing new for us, and many times in the past we've replaced that with other business. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Thanks. Larry, any other follow-up?

Thank you. Yeah. Just quickly. Dan, I interpreted what you said on the Wortham acquisition as that is not part of MMA Agency. Is that correct or am I wrong on that? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: That is correct. I mean, we felt – when the team – we've been having discussions with Wortham for quite a while. We've gotten to know them very well over many years. And, culturally, they align more with Marsh than they do with Marsh & McLennan Agency. They skew a little bit higher. Although they do have some middle-market business, they skew into the upper-middle market in the large accounts space. They're very good in specialty areas like energy. They work on some big accounts. It's more of a team dynamic organizational relationships, that sort of thing. And so, we felt it was a better cultural fit. And, as you know from our acquisitions in the past, cultural fit and culture and that kind of chemistry between teams is one of the areas that we really look at and highlight and focus on. And we just felt they were a better fit for Marsh than MMA.

Great. Thank you. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Next question, please?

Next question from Meyer Shields in KBW. Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Thanks. So, Dan, one quick question on the Consulting side. Just with regard to the responsiveness of expenses to the revenue shortfall, can you talk about how that compare to your expectations? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: I mean, it's a fair question overall in terms of when you look at the expense base of the company because clearly Consulting – we, for many years, have been able to, in most quarters, grow revenue at a faster pace than expenses. That is a philosophy of our company. Clearly, it won't happen in every quarter, and obviously in this quarter, Consulting is upside down. It's tough when you have 1% growth overall not to be upside down, right, and 1% is kind of an anomaly for us in Consulting. But we look at our expenses very carefully. I mean, one of the things to consider what I think is a bright spot within the company is the notion that in a people business, comp and benefits is always our biggest driver of costs. It's always the largest portion of cost of goods sold. And so, if we look at our comp and benefits ratio as a percentage of revenue, they're basically flat across the company, which means we're doing a good job managing our comp and ben regardless of the revenue over the course of the last few quarters. And so that to me is a positive. If you look at Consulting's operating expenses, there's a lot going on, so let me unpack it a little bit because obviously you'll see some growth in their operating expenses. Both M&A and FX are fasters and both contributed to an uptick in expenses in…

Next question from Yaron Kinar in Goldman Sachs. Yaron Kinar - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Good morning, everybody. I want to go back a second to the DBA business. Just to maybe set my expectations. I think you're talking about a stable decline, and yet you're also saying that 1Q 2018 was probably more in line with your expectations. Even if I compare 1Q 2018's revenue decline to 2017 and 2016, it seems like the decline has accelerated. So, I just want to better understand what stable decline means from your perspective. And on top of that, are the revenues that you're replacing this lost DBA revenue with – are you able to achieve similar margins on the replaced revenues in other businesses within Consulting? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Sure. So, I'll take that a little bit, and then I'll hand off for Julio for more color. I'll say a few things. First, on the margin point, DBA is a large established business with high margins, right? So, some of the growth industries that Mercer has invested in, over time, we anticipate will have similar margins at some point in the future, but they do not do so at this moment in time. The other thing I want to say about DBA and defined benefit in general is if you look broadly the topic of retirement security is fundamental. The best retirement security products have not even been invented yet. So, it's not – completely think that this is just a downward trend forever, that there won't be other things that get developed to help solve the challenge that's a major issue globally for an aging population. And so there will be other types of approaches, and Mercer will be very involved in…

Next question from Dave Styblo in Jefferies.

Hi, there. Good morning. Hey, Dan, when we were on the road on last time, you spoke about sort of a framework for long-term EPS growth and something if you're growing organic growth around 3%, that that's reasonable to think about a 10% EPS grower. And then as you scale that up to 4% or 5% over time, EPS growth obviously looks better than that. I'm just curious, with the strong results in U.S./Canada and that looks like EMEA is bouncing back a little bit, can you talk about some areas that gives you more confidence about being able to eventually push organic growth higher? I think UK was one of the pressure points. Can you just give us an update there since U.S./Canada seems to be doing quite well right now? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. So, a few things. I think the point that I've made before is that our long-term adjusted EPS growth over time will be more determined by the top line than margin expansion in the future. I mean, when you look back, you go back a decade ago or so, it was about margins, right? And we had to improve our margins and we did that as a firm and a lot of our adjusted EPS growth was driven off of margin. This has been the aftermath of a financial crisis. And so it has been a long, slow growth GDP environment globally. A little bit better now, but it's certainly not buoyant. And as we've said before, GDP is one of the determinants because it's a big determinant of exposure units. GDP, payrolls, et cetera. So, it's a bit better in the U.S., but the rest of the world, as an example, is not materially better than it…

Helpful. Okay. And then for my follow-up, I hate to come back to it but the DBCA business for the softness. I guess the biggest question investors want to get their arms around is could this get worse as you move into the second half and beyond? Can you – I think two of the reasons you talked about was just soft project work and then less new wins. Maybe on the back part of that, is it less new wins just because there's less going around or are you not winning as much as you historically have? And then looking back, you did start to give us a segment breakdown I think going back to 2016 where growth was flat that year. It was down 2% last year. Are you guys able to give us what the organic growth profile looked like maybe going back into 2015, 2014 and 2013 just to understand has it been this low before and does it just tend to bounce around from time to time? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. I think you need to really focus on defined benefit in terms of what it actually is. At the end, defined benefit is with regard to pension plans. And if you look back into history, the further you go back in history, the more that there would be new formation of DB plans, active DB plans. That has – as you know, we've become a defined contribution world. There is not many new DB plans available. There's other activity in that area. I mean, if you look at the development within Mercer of the investment business, the investment business is far stronger than it was five years ago and certainly 10 years ago, but it has gone from…

Sure. Okay. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: So, next question please?

Thanks.

Next question from Mike Zaremski, Credit Suisse.

Hey. Thanks for fitting me in. Regarding the disclaimer on the tax rate could potentially change based on guidance, I appreciate that's a complicated bill but I was hoping maybe you could shed light on whether we should be thinking the long-term tax rate is biased higher or lower. And I guess related, there's been a number of companies – the multinational companies talk about the BEAT tax impact in outer years, and kind of curious if we should be thinking about that as well. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. Thanks. Mark, you want to take that? Mark McGivney - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Yeah. I think our estimate of the higher end of that 25% to 26% range for this year contemplates everything that we know at this point. And we've actually had six months to work through the particulars of the bill and see our geographic list of earnings and things like that. So we feel like we've got good visibility for this year. In terms of longer-term, there's so many factors that can influence our rate – tax law changes aside, that really our guidance does go year-to-year. So, I won't give you – I don't have a really good perspective on longer-term at this point. And in terms of the language, it is still very new and it is a very complicated bill. And there is the possibility that, as I said, the U.S. Treasury or others could come out with different interpretations of a very complicated bill that for global companies like us involves a lot of decisions. But as we sit here today, we feel good about the rate that we're projecting for the rest of the year. Things like BEAT – it has no impact on us this year. The targets of those types of provisions, like earnings stripping type behaviors, really was not part of our technology. And so, at this point, we think we'll be able to deal with any of the provisions that have potential to impact this year's factored into the rate guidance that I gave.

Okay. Got it. That's helpful. And one quick follow up. Dan, you mentioned, in terms of the restructuring charges, in terms of being able to accelerate investment. You mentioned increasingly going digital, and I guess it just kind of remind me of this insurtech word, which seems to be – get a huge buzz these days. From my top-down perspective, I'm honestly not sure if most of the headlines are noise, or if they're adding real value. Maybe if you can talk from Marsh's vantage point, if you can offer color on whether insurtech is something that you think is – you guys are investing and looking at, or will be a material impact over the coming years? Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Sure. We could probably spend an hour on that one. So, I'll try, in our next call, to address it a little bit more, but just very quickly. Yes, absolutely. We're very engaged with insurtech activity. We want to improve our peripheral vision. We are working in all kinds of different ways in order to do that. Yes, we periodically see something that we want to either have a partnership with or even make a small investment into. The insurance industry remains inefficient in some parts of the value chain and whether you're looking at policy issuance, claims process, et cetera. And so, there's a lot of interesting things going on in the insurtech space that may bring value to our clients. And so, yeah, we are absolutely engaged in that.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I just like to hand back over to the speaker today, Dan Glaser. Daniel S. Glaser - Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.: Okay. Thank you very much. And let me just finish by saying I feel really good about the business and where we are. We are on track to deliver another strong year of financial performance. We've grown 4% underlying year-to-date. Our adjusted EPS is up 11% year-to-date, and so we've got a lot to play for in the second half. I'd like to thank all of you for joining us on the call this morning. And 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.

Thank you. And this will conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation, ladies and gentlemen. You may now disconnect.