Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to The NASDAQ OMX third quarter 2014 results conference call. (Operator Instructions) I would now turn the call over to your host, Ed Ditmire, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us today to discuss NASDAQ's third quarter 2014 earnings results. On the line are Bob Greifeld, our CEO; Lee Shavel, CFO; Ed Knight, General Counsel; Co-Presidents, Adena Friedman and Hans-Ole Jochumsen; and other members of the management team. After prepared remarks, we'll open up to Q&A. The press release and presentation are on our website. We intend to use the website as a means of disclosing material, non-public information and complying with disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD. I'd like to remind you that certain statements in this presentation and during Q&A may relate to future events and expectations, and as such, constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from these projections. Information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements is contained in our press release and periodic reports filed with the SEC. I now will turn the call over to Bob.

Thank you, Ed. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today to discuss NASDAQ's third quarter 2014 results. We are pleased to deliver to our shareholders record-tying $0.72 non-GAAP diluted earnings per share and continued strong non-GAAP EPS growth of 9% year-on-year. Year-to-date, our non-GAAP EPS growth is a very strong 11%. Total net revenue for the quarter was $497 million and our operating margins rose to a very healthy 43%, the highest since the first quarter 2013. We delivered these results against the backdrop of what I would characterize as a more traditional summer, with more seasonality than we have experienced over the past few years, which certainly impacted the topline. During the quarter, we continued to be vigilant on our expense structure. We achieved an impressive 6% organic year-on-year reduction in non-GAAP cost and we lowered our 2014 expense forecast for the second time this year, which Lee will discuss in more detail in a few minutes. That being said, the management team here in this room is by no means content with our performance for the quarter. Looking forward, there are a number of developments and instill confidence in our ability to capitalize on the substantial growth opportunities in front of us. First, we remain on track to again deliver an exceptional full year performance in 2014. Year-to-date, organic growth is up 4% overall and 5% in our non-transaction based businesses alone and our non-GAAP EPS is up 11%. The fourth quarter has started with excellent momentum. U.S. equities and option volumes are up about 30% month-to-date in October compared to October 2013 levels, and on-the-run U.S. treasury volumes are up over twice that rate. Just recently eSpeed saw an all-time record volume of $210 billion in principal traded on October 15. Our competitive position…

Thanks, Bob. Good morning, everyone. The following comments will focus on our non-GAAP results. Reconciliations of GAAP to non-GAAP results can be found in the attachments to our press release and in the presentation that's available on our website at ir.nasdaqomx.com. Overall, our financial performance this quarter can be described as stable operating revenues, pressured by some environmental challenges, such as an adverse foreign exchange environment and some temporary business issues such as the quarterly drop in audit revenues, and the step down of the ELX contract, offset by growth in our Listings business, index and Market Technology, as well as a significant reduction in our overall expense base year-over-year. I will start by reviewing our third quarter revenue performance relative to the prior-year quarter, as shown on Page 3 of the presentation. Net revenues declined 2% or $9 million to $497 million. Contributing to this decrease was a 1% or $5 million decrease in subscription and recurring revenue, due largely to lower data audit collections of approximately $8 million, pricing actions designed to offset loss subsidies for certain corporate solutions customers, and changes in foreign exchange, offset by $7 million of revenue growth in listings, indexes, and Market Technology. Subscription and recurring revenue represented 74% of total revenues. Transaction-driven revenues fell 3% or $4 million, due mainly to the changes in foreign exchange, which represented $2 million of the $4 million decline, as well as $2 million in scheduled reductions in eSpeed technology license revenue, as previously discussed. On an organic basis, assuming constant currency and excluding acquisitions, total company net revenues declined 1%. And if we move to Page 4 in the presentation, we show how that organic growth breaks down between the non-transactional, Information Services, Technology Solutions and Listing Services segments, and the volume-sensitive Market Services segment.…

Thank you. Operator, can you please open the line to Q&A.

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Rich Repetto with Sandler O'Neill.

I guess my first question is on the expenses, Lee. So if you look at your guidance, and we took the first half and then subtracted the previous guidance, and you would have expected somewhere, even if you're at the low end, close to $300 million, if you use the midpoint $306 million and you are significantly below that. I know FX must have played some role. So you significantly beat. I'm just trying to see whether that was something that was occurring during the quarter or towards the end of the quarter? And then, if you look at the guidance going forward, now that you have three quarters, it's the same thing you're implying at the low end, close to $300 million in 4Q and at the midpoint $308 million, which seems very high from the $284 million this quarter.

So I guess, Richard, look, just looking for guidance in terms of the drivers this quarter.

Well, I guess, why was it down so much $284 million in 3Q? And then why would it go back up to $308 million?

Sure. So the simple answer, Rich, is that, in the third quarter the biggest component of our expenses is compensation. And we are constantly evaluating where we are relative to our overall goals within the business. And in the third quarter, as you saw, our revenues were down on an absolute basis and that influences our performance goals, and we effectively had to reduce our overall expectations for our compensation. That had the biggest impact on the overall expense level. That's obviously something going into the beginning of the quarter, when we set our expense guidance. We don't have perfect insight into. And so over that quarter that's the primary influence. There was also an impact of foreign exchange, which also reduced the dollar value of our foreign expenses, due to a decline in the dollar, SEK rate. And then we also had what I would describe as some sequential year changes, particularly related to some retirement in pension liabilities that were approximately $4 million associated with that. So if that's what contributed to I think a particularly strong reduction in this year-over-year period, we obviously can't anticipate fully in the fourth quarter what the performance would be, because obviously the volumes are stronger, so we may see higher expenses as a result of a more volatile operating environment.

And also just to add one thing, in the fourth quarter you traditionally see our marketing expenses are high. So we have some seasonality to expenses as we look at the fourth quarter.

And then my one follow-up, Bob and Lee, is you made some significant progress in the operating margin of Technology Solutions. And I'm just trying to see, it looks like expenses went down, again I'm sure there's an FX impact by more than 10% quarter-to-quarter, the implied expenses, if you look at the margin. So I'm just trying to see, of the $35 million in synergies that you guided to, how much is in there already, because if you look at the implied it will be $14 million down just quarter-to-quarter. Even if you took these expenses against last quarter's revenue, you get to an 18% margin. So anyway, the short question is, how far are we in that $35 million? And is the 113 implied expenses a good run rate?

So, Rich, a couple of things. One, as it relates to the operating margin for the Technology Solution sector, I would caution you, it's obviously a good increase from where we were a year ago. But it does reflect some of the compensation reductions that I just described in the earlier answer. And we also had a reversal of some bad debt charges that we had taken earlier in the year that it proven to be not necessary. And so that 13% level is, I would not describe as a normalized level. I think that we will probably view that more in the high single-digits levels, still representing an improvement on a year-over-year basis. And in terms of the $35 million in synergies, as we've described we're still engaged in migrating the platforms. We're still in the investment phase. And I think we have realized some portion of those savings, but I would say that we still have a significant portion to achieve, once we fully migrate it on to the other platforms. But remain very confident that we'll be able to achieve that on the timeline we described.

So, Rich, I would say that the business is focused right now on effectiveness and we are obviously taking some efficiency drives. But we're doing a lot of investments in certainly the next-gen product, which I referred to in my comments. And this next-gen is not just for IR, but it's really across the whole product suite that we have. We obviously have to make investments in kind of the infrastructure support. So we're pleased with the efficiency we achieved so far, but that has not been our primary goal. Right now our primary goal is to make sure this organization is effective and competitive, and really can take great opportunities with the changing product sets that we'll be delivering.

Our next question comes from Kenneth Hill with Barclays.

I wanted to start with some of the pricing changes you guys had in Corporate Solutions, the compensate for the loss of the subsidies. Is that fully in the run rate at this point, because we've seen those revenues kind of tick lower within the Corporate Solutions? Just want to see what the outlook is there?

Yes, Ken. They are fully in the run rate and amount to approximately $3 million a quarter. That's the revenue impact.

Next one here, on the listings, and so you guys had some really strong IPO trends in the quarter and you mentioned NASDAQ Private Market had some nice developments here as well. But your overall listings revenue within the U.S. is kind of flat. I know that's down quarter-over-quarter, just given some of the FX impacts. But how should we think about that here over fourth quarter and even into '15, given the IPO environment right now?

Well, certainly, the Listings business is I think, you and most people on the call know, but I'll repeat anyway. We recognize the revenue, the initial listing fee, over six years. So that's a muted impact up and down.

And I just wanted to point out that we actually had -- $2 million of growth came in the U.S. listing fees year-over-year. And the European listing fees were flat over that period. So I think counter to your perception that we actually had 5% growth in U.S. listing fees.

So I was just looking quarter-over-quarter for that?

Yes. Quarter-over-quarter it was flat, and then it was down sequentially $1 million in the European listing fees.

So outlook is just taking a little bit more time, as you guys mentioned what the amortization of those fees overtime?

That's right. Exactly.

Our next question comes from Brian Bedell with Deutsche Bank.

Bob, if you can just talk a little bit more about the NLX strategy, where we stand on that, the current drag to current results, and how you're thinking about that coming into yearend and in 2015? Maybe just comment on market share and whether there is any thought about reviewing, continuing with that program into 2015?

We're certainly pleased with the progress of NLX. You see market share in the teens in Euribor. And just in the last week or two, you saw the Schatz market share go up into mid-to-high single-digits. So we're pleased with that point. And I'd also say that NLX has now achieved a certain level of creditability, where you see significant new players wanting to become involved with the effort. So good execution in the quarter, we continue to work away. We understand progress in this kind of new initiative is not linear, but so far so good.

And how about the earnings drag for the quarter on the market payments -- the payments to market makers?

It was stable to the prior period and for the prior-year period, Brian, so no change in that level.

And then just, my follow-up would be just on eSpeed. Can you talk a little bit more about the revenue growth outlook there, and coming to 2015, both on your view on market-driven volumes and then also the product development, the new products that you've launched and have in the pipeline in terms of the cross-sell ability to those, and to your user base over the next, say, 12 months?

So I'll add a third dimension to your question. So, one, with respect to market share, we're not pleased with our progress there. We continue to work very hard at it. And I think our engagements with our customers are reaching new introductive levels. So I think we'll see progress in that. With respect to volumes, we got teased by a good week and one great day. This week it's back to where it kind of was. So we see the power of the franchise in rates move. We certainly are expecting good things. But we really can't control that. We watch it everyday, but we can't control it. On the new product side, we're certainly, I think executing very well. As I mentioned during our prepared remark, the bills product has gone very well. Our next product introduction is coming right around Thanksgiving, with full rollout come the first of the year, and we're excited about that. So we have a fairly robust pipeline of products. We want to stage them, and make sure each and every one of the rollouts is as successfully executed as the bills was. So market share, we've got some work to do. Volume were teased, but nothing that seems to be staying with us. And third, the product introduction has been well done so far.

Our next question comes from Alex Blostein with Goldman Sachs.

So first question just on the share count. So you guys bought back through October a little over 3 million shares, but I guess if we look at the total share count, it hasn't move all that much recently. Can you give us a sense of what the creep-in from, either it's eSpeed or just kind of like the regular comp related share issuance? Just to kind of get a better sense on over the next 12 months or so, what kind of the gross issuance or the gross creep-up in the share count should be?

Alex, the annual share issuance associated with eSpeed is approximately 1 million shares each year. And then from a compensation standpoint, it's generally between 2 million to 3 million shares each year.

And then my second one is, I was hoping to get your thoughts on the SEC's recent decision to hold a hearing on SIFMA's complaint about pricing and market data, which I guess they agreed to do in early '15. So just from, I guess from a time line perspective, was hoping to hear, how do you expect this to play out, and what your response is expected to be?

Well, I would led Ed answer part of this question, but first I would say, market data has been a debated topic in this industry now for decades really, when you think back on it. So this is a latest piece of a continuing saga, and we certainly don't see it have any impact in terms of our businesses. Ed you want to comment?

Yes. Very much consistent with what you said, Bob. We believe this claim is without merit. I would point out through the years, as Bob has alluded to, with the New York Stock Exchange we have rebuffed these challenges, including a direct suit that SIFMA brought against the SEC that they lost. And I think the record is very strong that we have a wide suite of competitively priced data products that in many cases results in customers saving money across the board. I think that record is very strong.

Yes, what Ed is referring to is NASDAQ Basic, really, it has the ability and it's been, I guess, the most successful data product in our industry in quite some time, and it does reduce our customers cost anywhere from 40% to 60%. So we're proud of that.

Our next question comes from Ashley Serrao with Credit Suisse.

First, on options market share. There's been a decline this quarter, I was hoping, you could just share some color on what's going on there, and maybe talk about the trade-off between share and revenue capture?

A good question. Something we obviously deal with all the time in our transaction businesses. So we did see some decline in share, but it was certainly not directly correlated to revenue. And that the share we lost was from volume that was most attractively priced there. So I think we're doing a very good job of optimizing those two dimensions, and we pay attention to it all the time.

And then just going back to NLX, as we head towards the ESMA rulemaking process in December, I was hoping you could share some color on what you're hearing from both our customers and regulators, as everybody lobbies each other?

Well, I would say this, the NLX effort is not predicated on any ESMA rules. I mean, we're trying to leverage the horizontal clearing capability that LCH brings to the marketplace. So we're not trying to essentially gain access to a vertical monopoly at this point in time. So NLX has a clear path. I would say clearly the lobbing is very intensive with respect to how ESMA would play out. I mean, the current set of ESMA rules, as they're currently constituted I think is very favorable for NASDAQ OMX. We are definitely proponents of the horizontal clearing model and we support that. Hans-Ole, would you like to add anything?

I think you were precise.

Trying to be.

Our next question comes from Jillian Miller with BMO Capital Markets.

So just going back to the Thompson Reuters business, you referred to some pricing you're offering to promote client relationships and I wasn't sure if that was related to the subsidy issue or if this is something completely separate, more related to the competitive pressure that you mentioned in the Investor Relations product. So just wanted to get a little bit of more detail on kind of what's being offered, why you think it's necessary on that piece.

Certainly, Jillian. To be perfectly clear what we were referring to was, our continuation extension of the subsidy that had been previously offered by the competitor. We believe that both from a relationship standpoint as well as due to associated revenue from those clients that is non-subsidized, as well as what we see the opportunity of continuing to extend those relationships, it was absolutely the right economic decision for us to continue those subsidies and that's precisely what we're referring to.

So there's nothing else, it's just that $3 million that you already disclosed?

That's correct.

And then on the regulatory front, we're getting close to having the SEC's proposed Tick Size Pilot with at least one of their test groups embedded trade-at provisions. And I was just interested to get your thoughts on, like how much we should be reading into this? Do you get the sense that the regulators and the industry are kind of trying to test out a trade-up. But if test group three's data successful, it could be expanded to the broader market or do you think this has always been and will always be something that, in the regulator's mind, is kind of relegated to less liquid stocks and not a industry-wide type of solution?

Well, the first thing I'd say is when you look at the broad sweep of regulation across the globe, there is a strong trend line towards some trade at type or trade at equivalent type of rule and that's applying to most developed market. So I would certainly predict that in the fullness of time here in the U.S., you're going to see an evolution of the market structure rules, hopefully aided and informed by the results of the Tick Pilot. But I'd also say that here at NASDAQ OMX, we're focusing on the world that exists today and making sure that we can compete and better serve our customers. And if you've been following our daily midpoint liquidity, product and services has been growing in popularity and that's allowing our customers to get price improvements mostly in the dark, but it is price improvement in the context of the rule sets of an exchange, so we're proud about that. So when you think about where we're going to go, we certainly will be a strong advocate for market structure changes. I think we'll improve our market, but we're also going to be quite pragmatic about making sure we do things today that work within the construct of the current rule set.

Our next question comes from Mike Carrier with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

First, just on the revenues, if I look at the sequential change, it looks like there's -- if we exclude the transactions, given the seasonality, and then also the $8 million in audit, it looks like sequentially it's down maybe 3%, and maybe the FX impacted that as well, so maybe 2%. I guess I'm just trying to understand, when I think about like what's seasonally soft, so whether it's the tech business, if you had a little bit of seasonality this quarter, Corporate Solutions, just anything to try to get a sense on going into the fourth quarter, can you see some rebound? Because it just seemed like across the segments there was a little bit of softness, versus something like you pointed out, whether it's audit or in corporate solutions, that pricing change; just wanted to see if there was anything else that you would point out as more seasonality versus just core?

So Lee, why don't you answer that and let Adena fill in some of the blanks.

Sure. So Mike, I would say that from a Market Services standpoint, I think we generally lower levels of overall activity reflecting some of that softness that Bob described that's kind more of a traditional slowdown. Beyond that we obviously had a strong Listing business due to the continued strong IPO market and we had a mix in the Technology Solutions business, some areas of growth in the press release, in the governance products as well as some weakness on the Investor Relations products. I think, you generally would see a slower activity in the third quarter from some of those event-driven businesses like the PR business as well as the Multimedia businesses, and so I think, that probably had an overall contribution to some of the lower revenues in the third quarter. And in market data, there really isn't a lot of seasonality in that business. And with regard to Market Technology, there typically our strongest quarter is the fourth quarter; the third quarter does tend to be a little bit on the slower side. So those are the elements of seasonality that I think we saw in the business in the third quarter. And I'll hand it over to Adena for any additional color on that.

Sure. Just a couple of additional details. With regard to the Market Technology business, in the third quarter we tend to find that our clients request and execute fewer minor enhancements to their systems that we tend to work with them on, so our minor -- what we call our client request revenue tends to be lower in the third quarter, just based on vacations and other things happening among our client base. And then with regard to the Corporate Solutions, as you mentioned, Lee, also in relation to the fact that over the summer, it tends to be a slower period for a lot of corporate clients, that means that they request fewer multimedia events, they request fewer things where we provide service and get paid on more of a one-time basis as opposed to the recurring revenue streams for most of our products there.

And then just on the buybacks, just given the authorization and given the pace that we saw in the quarter and in October, I guess any change in the outlook there, just given where the debt level is? What the maturities are going forward in the cash flow, or is it going to be more of the same kind of ongoing and then opportunistic?

The answer is no change in our strategy. And I think, the point that I want to emphasize is that, as I've said a couple of times, we want to be opportunistic on the share repurchases. As you saw in the second quarter with the impact of the Flash Boys, we were very aggressive in that quarter. In the third quarter, I think you saw a pretty steady trend upwards in the stock price. There weren't a lot of pull backs for us to be aggressive opportunistically. And then clearly in October, as we've disclosed given some of the downdraft in the global markets, we saw an opportunity to be more aggressive. So overall, we continue to remain committed to this as a significant means of returning capital shareholders. We continue to believe, that at these valuations, there are very good returns on capital for it, but we also want people to understand, we're going to be opportunistic quarter-to-quarter and so that will create some variances. But overall, the share repurchase authorization is emblematic of our continued commitment to do that when the opportunities exist.

Our next question comes from Chris Harris with Wells Fargo.

Just want to follow-up on that question and answer regarding the revenues. So you guys give us the year-on-year growth rate, which negates the impact of seasonality. And if we look at that growth rate you're down 1% year-on-year excluding FX. You guys talked about some discrete items this quarter, if we back those out, so the negative impact from data and the pricing changes in Corporate Solutions, what would your year-on-year organic growth rate would have been in the quarter?

Excluding the market data, which I think is the big impact, for this year-over-year period, we would be looking at 2% organic growth on a year-over-year basis. And I think that reflects some of the seasonality, and meaning that I think that this recognize it's a year-over-year comparison, that we feel, as though that it was a slower summer this year relative to last year that is contributing to some extent, but again, its one quarter. If you look at our year-to-date performance for the non-transactional businesses, we still are within the guidance range that we have, that we've set.

And follow-up question on the IR, PR business. If everything goes right there and you guys start firing on all cylinders with your next generation offering, what kind of revenue growth do you guys think you can do there? I know you've got, I think a mid-single digit revenue target for that whole segment, but I'm wondering specifically for the Thomson business.

Yes. We haven't disclosed that. I would say, obviously, we're focused on making sure the product is good as they can be. The market itself is quite large, but certainly we would aspire to have a double-digit growth rate in that business.

Our next question comes from Ken Worthington with JPMorgan.

First on pricing, I believe, NASDAQ raised prices on listings, and other exchanges have raised prices selectively both in trading and non-trading businesses. Maybe how do you think about pricing power based on the competitive nature of your businesses? And is pricing a relevant component of revenue growth, as we look out over the next two years to three years?

One, I would say it will certainly be a component of our revenue growth and we really look at how are we delivering value to our customers, and then are we being properly compensated for that value. So the listing business, we have spent a lot of time and effort growing the suite of product and services we offer to our issuers, and we had not raised prices for quite sometimes that was more than fair. And I think the uptake from our customers is representative of their view of that. And we do have the grand opening of our new market site coming up in the next two weeks, so we're excited about that. So there is pricing capability, but we do it based upon how are we delivering value to customers.

And then, what other areas do you think are most conducive to price increases, like just very broadly. I don't need specifics, but what other areas?

Well, when you innovate and you're doing something that your competitors cannot do or will not be able to do for quite some time, then obviously you have more pricing power. So when you look at how we're investing in our future, and we're doing a number of things I classify that are blue ocean, where there is not a strong competition, and we're going to spaces where people don't exist. Today, that has the ability to have strong pricing power and strong margins. And you had even the seasonal slowdown a strong margin in the third quarter. So we expect that to continue and hopefully improve.

Our next question comes from Niamh Alexander with KBW.

And on the Technology Solutions business, and you gave a lot of color there, and we appreciate it. It sounds like you're probably ahead of plan maybe on migrating some of the Investor Relations business as well as the Information Services. But just looking near-term for the fourth quarter, given the seasonality you pointed to in the third quarter and with some issues there for the Technology Solutions. Is there anything in the fourth quarter this year that it's just that it should be weaker than the fourth quarter last year, because there was a huge gap between third and fourth quarter last year and there is some seasonality that benefits the fourth quarter? Is there anything that would change that this year?

Nothing that I'm aware of. Lee or Adena?

I think that in the fourth quarter of last year we did have some significant new business coming into the Market Technology business. And in terms of the fourth quarter of this year, there are certainly some opportunities there, but we don't have any like major new clients coming online with a full solution in the fourth quarter of this year. But otherwise, no, there is nothing else.

So just because the new clients came on last year, Adena, would they have kind of given a unusual bump maybe to the fourth quarter last year?

We had significant kind of enhancement revenue in the fourth quarter of last year. We always have seasonality to that. I think the fourth quarter of last year was particularly strong. But otherwise I think that we will find that generally business is usual across on both the parts of the business.

And if I could go back to the options and maybe Bob or Tom, if you're around. We've kind of lived through in the equities in the past. We have a non-public competitor that's starting to gain some traction or some more attraction, and to really kind of go aggressive on the pricing. And they're already significantly lower than you, but they're taking a bit of share. So help me think about your philosophy and your latitude, and your interest to kind of maintain the market share levels, and your capacity to kind of -- not necessarily get down to where their pricing is, but to take some more pricing hits along the way. It seems like it's a pretty profitable business for you guys too, so you can take a bit of hit on the pricing to maintain the market share, how do you feel about that?

Well, first I would say is the context is somewhat different between equities and equity option. So the market structure in equity options is different. There is internalization within the exchange itself, and all option trades really have to be traded on exchange. And in that internalization or allocation process, there is relative competitive advantages that are somewhat price insensitive. So we recognize that as a context, but clearly it's a competitive world in the options marketplace. You correctly identify there will be some non-public rational competitors. We've been in this movie before. I think we have a well-trained management with Hans-Ole and Tom, and the rest of the folks who will know how to play the game of chess and the optimization between profitability and market share. Now, as I've said previously, it's something we think about on a regular and consistent basis, and we definitely look for the proper balance. And I think based upon some of the share we won at the cash rate -- the share we lost and the cash rate we're receiving for that, I think it was the proper decisions.

Our final question comes from Neil Stratton with Citi.

I just wanted to ask a question about NASDAQ Private Market. How do you think the revenue opportunity could progress overtime? And sort of, part B, when you think inflection there would be some more material to the topline?

So, one, I would say, the basic model for NPM is that a company that's on NPM should generate 2x the revenue then we get from a similarly situated company that's on the public market. And that's in consideration of the nature of trading that will exist on NPM and how it will be conducted. And obviously, the services we'll offer to these private companies that are not always germane to a public company. So that clearly will be material to us overtime, as these product and services grow and the companies grow. So right now, we're obviously focusing on getting our experience in running liquidity programs for these companies and also developing our product with cap table management, because that is really probably the first thing they are interested in is to maintain control of their shareholder registry. And in addition to running a direct service we can offer that through our liquidity programs there. So in terms of when this will be meaningful, we haven't clearly articulated that. But I think the thing to watch is how many companies we have and capture per that level of company relative to public market. And I think they'll be surprised at the comparisons we can bring forward in the quarters to come.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Bob Greifeld, CEO, for closing remarks.

Well, thank you everybody for your time today. As we said, we had a seasonally slow quarter, aggressive expense management. Also you saw again the diversity of our business model, where three quarters of the revenue is recurring, resulting in any difficult quarter record-tying earnings. Fourth quarter has started at a lot stronger pace. We do hope that it continues. But regardless to that, we continue to execute upon our chosen business pathways here. And as I said previously and in the remarks, we see more opportunities in front of us right now for growth in this institution that we have seen really since I have been here. So we're excited about what we've accomplished in third quarter, look to do even better in the quarters to come. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today's conference. You may all disconnect. And everyone have a great day.