Good day, everyone and welcome to the Northern Trust Corporation fourth quarter 2007 earnings conference call. Today’s call is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to the Director of Investor Relations Bev Fleming, for opening remarks and introductions. Please go ahead, Bev.

Welcome to Northern Trust Corporation’s fourth quarter 2007 earnings conference call. Whether you are participating in today’s conference call live or via replay we appreciate the time you’re taking to listen to Northern Trust’s fourth quarter 2007 financial results. Joining me on our call this morning are Steve Fradkin, Northern Trust’s Chief Financial Officer; Aileen Blake, Controller and Percy Sullivan from our Investor Relations team. For those of you who did not receive our fourth quarter earnings press release or financial trends report via email this morning, they are both available on our website at NorthernTrust.com. In addition, this January 16th call is being webcast live on NorthernTrust.com. The only authorized rebroadcast of this call is the replay that will be available through January 23rd. Northern Trust disclaims any continuing accuracy of the information provided in this call after today. Now for our Safe Harbor statement. What we say during today’s conference call may include forward-looking statements which are Northern Trust’s current estimates or expectations of future events or future results. Actual results, of course, could differ materially from those indicated by these statements because the realization of those results is subject to many risks and uncertainties. I urge you to read our 2006 financial annual report and our periodic reports to the SEC for detailed information on factors that could affect actual results. Again, thank you for your time today. Let me now turn the call over to Steve Fradkin.

Thank you, Bev and good morning, everyone. Let me extend my welcome to all of you listening to Northern Trust Corporation’s fourth quarter 2007 earnings conference call. Early this morning, Northern Trust announced fourth quarter reported net income of $125 million and reported earnings per share of $0.55. Consistent with Form 8-K filings we made on November 13, 2007 and on January 11, 2008, these results included a $150 million fourth quarter non-operating charge associated with our membership in Visa USA. This charge represents our estimated portion of potential losses arising from certain litigation in which Visa is involved and for which we and all other Visa members have provided indemnification. As previously disclosed in our Form 8-K filing on November 13, $50 million of the charge represents our estimate of our proportionate share of a settlement involving litigation between Visa and American Express. The remaining $100 million charge represents the estimate of our proportionate share of additional indemnified litigation that has yet to be resolved. Guidance provided by the Securities & Exchange Commission clarified that member banks such as Northern Trust must recognize the estimated fair value of the additional indemnified litigation. We continue to expect that our proportional share of the proceeds of Visa’s planned initial public offering will more than offset any liabilities related to Visa litigation. Excluding the Visa charge, Northern Trust recorded operating earnings per share equal to $0.97 in the fourth quarter, representing a very strong increase of 26% compared to the $0.77 that we reported in the fourth quarter of 2006. Operating net income equaled a quarterly record of $219 million, representing an increase of 28% year over year. This was our 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit year-over-year growth in operating earnings per share, and our 11th consecutive quarter of double-digit year-over-year growth…

(Operator Instructions) And we’ll take our first question from Mark Fitzgibbon with Sandler O’Neill. Mark Fitzgibbon - Sandler O’Neill: Good morning and thank you for taking my question. Steve, I wondered, if you look at assets under management and assets under custody, they were relatively flattish from the linked quarter. I’m curious; could you share with us what was the impact on each of these from market action and what was attributable to the fund [post]?

Mark, I think when you look at it overall, one I would say that we are very pleased with the asset aggregation that we had in both categories. I think what you are probably focusing on is the assets under management linked quarter but remember that the primary driver of that declined linked quarter was a $14 billion decline in our securities lending collateral, which was driven by this deleveraging phenomenon that we’ve been talking about. If you exclude that, our assets under management actually increased 2% sequentially, which is better than the S&P which was down 3.8% and the [EEPA] which was down 3.2%. So we feel very good about the asset accumulation and I think that explains the assets under management sequentially. Mark Fitzgibbon - Sandler O’Neill: Okay. And then the second question I had, Steve, you’ve obviously heard and read about a lot of the problems that other institutions are having down in Florida and I know that your business is very different but I wondered if you could share with us maybe some of the trends that you are seeing in your loans down there. And is that perhaps why you added so aggressively to the loan loss provision, or the loan loss reserve this quarter?

Well, let me just start with the loan loss, the provision, which was an $8 million provision. That was not linked in any specific way to anything in Florida. That was driven by growth in the commercial loan portfolio, so no linkage there. I would say when we look at Florida more generally, our fees in Florida were $53 million in the fourth quarter. They were up 8% year over year and a point sequentially. Our new business in Florida in the fourth quarter was very strong and more than double what we did in the fourth quarter the year before, so the Florida business continues for us to be excellent and growing. That said, I think there is a build-up of competition in Florida and Florida has its own, as you suggested, unique set of issues with respect to a troubled housing market, condo inventory and so forth. But there is a ballot in Florida that is coming up on the 29th that will help Floridians address or might help them address the real estate tax issues and a number of other things. So when we look at Florida, both for the quarter and for the year, we feel good about it. It continues to be an important part of our franchise. We like the positioning. The asset accumulation there was good. The new business was very good and very strong, so I think we are different than the aggregate macro issues that you are hearing about in Florida. Mark Fitzgibbon - Sandler O’Neill: Thank you.

We’ll take our next question from Nancy Bush with NAB Research.

Good afternoon, guys. I know, Steve, you pointed out that you are broadly diversified in both PFS and CNIS and the action in the equity markets does not have a one-for-one direct impact there, but if you could just summarize for us your exposure to the equity markets. I think you said it was 46% in the allocated portfolios and PFS. Is there a similar number that I could use to look at CNIS?

Let me make one point and then Bev’s going to give you that number. I think -- I want to be clear -- we are broadly diversified, not immune. So I wouldn’t want anyone and Nancy, you know this well, I wouldn’t want anyone to draw the conclusion that what is going on in the markets and so forth doesn’t touch us. We just wanted to make the point that it’s not a one-for-one on the upside and it’s not a one-for-one on the downside. Bev, you can --

Nancy, in terms of those statistics, in PFS, as you said, the equity market portion of AUM was 46%. In CNIS, the equity portion of assets under management was 35%.

And on the issue of the short duration, fixed income fund that has been a pain I guess for a couple of quarters now, how large is that fund and is sort of the -- are the participants in that fund continuing to hang in there? What’s happening?

I don’t know if I have the size of that with me, but I’ll --

Well, I can. The particular fund represents about 5% of our total securities lending collateral pool, which equaled $270 billion, so 5% of that total $270 billion securities lending collateral pool.

Let me make a couple of points here, and this is very consistent with what we described last quarter but it bears mentioning. If you look at our securities lending results, up 32% year over year but as we said, we had to endure the negative marks, if we weren’t -- if this were not a fund in which we had to have a mark-to-market, the comparable securities lending fee would have been up a little over 140%, so that gives you a flavor for what happens between, in this environment, at least, a mark-to-market and not marking to market. And remember that the mark-to-market occurs because these are pooled funds. If these were run as separate accounts, you do not need to mark it to market.

Nancy, if I could give you a number relative to what Steve just mentioned, in the third quarter we told you in this call that had that mark-to-market fund been a custom fund or one that was not required to be mark-to-market, our third quarter securities lending revenues would have been $36 million higher. That was third quarter. The comparable number and the way that Steve did that calculation to show you an adjusted growth rate, the comparable number for the fourth quarter was $46 million, so that’s what gets you from the actual year-over-year fourth quarter growth of 32% to this adjusted number that Steve provided of 142%.

And clients are continuing to hang in with the fund, or what is -- what sort of -- I mean, 5% of $270 billion is $13.5 billion. What was the similar number in the third quarter at the end of the third quarter?

For the size of the fund?

Yes.

I think it was slightly higher than that.

All right, great. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Mike Mayo with Deutsche Bank.

Good afternoon. Can you just clarify the one-timers a little bit more? You said there were $11 million of one-time client related expenses and I guess that’s offset by the low tax rate. A couple of questions -- how much of the lower tax rate is permanent, since you are more outside the U.S. now than you were before?

Maybe a little color -- we had historically been at an effective tax rate around 35%. We talked a year or so ago about our expectations that that would probably, you know, a lot of puts and takes but move down a point or so. Obviously this quarter we have a lot of noise with Visa and some other adjustments. As we look forward, Mike, we really -- we expect that to be in a more normalized environment around 33%, and that more normalized look emanates from the continued growth of our global business and the effects that that has from APB 23 and also some state tax law changes in Illinois. So that’s -- you know, obviously it will move around but that’s the level that we currently think is reasonable to think about without any noise in the quarter.

And then even after the $11 million of client related expenses, which I think or look one-time, other expenses were still up another $12 million. Is that due to the ads and promotions that you talked about?

No, I think our expenses were up across the board, whether you want to look at compensation, outside services, operating expenses, and so forth. It was broad-based. Clearly advertising and marketing expenses were up significantly year over year but I’d say we have a scenario where we are growing revenues by 25% year over year. We’ve got a global franchise. We’ve got a host of initiatives in process and as we’ve talked about in other past calls and past years, we very much try as best we can to calibrate our revenue growth and expense growth, and sometimes we do that a little better than others. But the short answer to your question is no, it is not exclusively related to marketing and advertising.

And then the $46 million mark-to-market hit that you took this quarter above the $36 million in the third quarter, while it’s not one-time, should we expect that to repeat? Because I guess if you didn’t have that this quarter, EPS would have been higher by a dime or more.

What I’d say is that it is very volatile in the markets and I certainly can’t predict what will happen but I think our continued belief, Mike, is that on the assumption that we’re right and that these securities, there’s no default on these securities, we would expect the things that had been marked down in 2007 to inure to our benefit in 2008 and beyond. And the exact timing of that will be a function of what happens in the markets and how things are valued, but yes, these are unrealized marks.

And then, getting to the other comment, are you -- in the past, I think I heard you say your revenues, for every 10% stock market decline, your revenues could be hurt by 1%, and you talked about the composition of equities in your business. Is that relationship still true?

Mike, the relationship is actually a 10% movement in the markets translates into a 4% movement in our trust, investment, and other servicing fees. And since those represent about half of revenues, you get to about a 2% impact on total revenues, not the 1% figure you just cited. So 10-4-2 is the relationship broadly, broad markets defined, up or down.

And as you look out at 2008, you have a lot of new business. On the other hand, you could have a little bit of a drag with a lower stock market. How do you think about that?

Well, I think -- you know, it’s really more a question how you think about that. We have to operate and run a business and serve clients day in and day out and we continue to like the business model, the markets we’re in, the value proposition that we’re gaining, and new business results, both in PFS and CNIS have been very strong. So we are going to try and do that whether the markets help us or hurt us. That’s how we look at it and obviously, we’d like the markets to be on the positive side but that’s not always going to be the case. It doesn’t really change how we think about trying to keep clients and earn new ones. Obviously on the margin, on the expense side, if we have a dimmer environment we have to rope in our discretionary spending. But that’s not a new phenomenon for us.

And then lastly, as it relates to the revenue growth that you had this year, what is the competitive environment like? You had two of your competitors kind of merging and everybody says pricing is no better, but are you seeing any benefits?

No, I think the competitive environment is as stiff as ever. We had two competitors merge but they are big and they strong and they are effective. So as we have said in the past, in environments like this, and it will move around, whether there is disruption because of M&A transactions or financial stress that competitors have, we generally like that environment. Our new business results, again, we’ve very strong across both businesses and there was disruption across both. But I wouldn’t attribute it specifically to the mergers, Mike, that you’re talking about. So the markets that we are in are big and we like the opportunity to continue to capitalize it and on it an obviously some of the stress that the non-trust bank competitors are having that -- organizations we compete with on the private wealth side, hopefully that will inure to our benefit but we’ll have to see. And I think on the pricing side, it continues to be institutionally a very, very competitive market. There are no lay-ups there.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Gerard Cassidy with RBC Capital Markets.

I don’t know if you guys have mentioned this, but have you guys announced your ownership in the Visa, or what it will be when the company goes, assuming it goes public this year?

No, Gerard, I don’t think we have done that.

Gerard, you’re talking about the value that we will attain when the Visa IPO occurs?

No, no, not the -- no one’s really going that far but we are receiving from other companies that will own 3% or 5% of the company once it goes public and then people are making estimates about what that would be worth.

We have not announced that so I am not sure I want to do that here, but you can probably work some directional math because when you look at what everyone else -- and everyone is announcing charges with relation to Visa and there is a certain proportionality, so that can probably get you close. I think I’d want to talk to our General Counsel before I give the number specifically.

Sure, no, that’s fair. The other question is obviously new business wins is an important part of your business, as well as some of your peers, as well as the selling of additional products to existing customers, both on the personal side as well as the corporate and institutional side. Are you guys finding it easier or harder, for that matter, selling existing customers on the corporate side more products? Is that an easier sale today than maybe three, four, five years ago?

You know, I can only give you intuition here but I think the cross-selling to institutional clients -- I don’t think, I know that that is absolutely critical and an important part of our growth. I don’t think it’s any harder today and arguably, and this is -- I don’t have data in front of me. I don’t want to say it’s easy but maybe it’s easier because there is a lot of complexity out there and a lot more granularity of choice, and I think there is a dimension that says you like to make those choices with people you know, people you’ve worked with for years and so forth. And so certainly if I were to back into the answer, I’d say when we look at our new business results in CNIS, there is still a very consistently significant piece coming from expanding existing relationships with clients. So a long way of saying I don’t think there’s a change on that front that we can discern.

Is it more important in terms of when you guys look at your revenue growth in a particular quarter, are you generating more of the revenue growth from existing clients taking on more products or is it new clients coming on board?

It’s typically 50-50, you know, 60-40, 40-60 -- it moves around but directionally, and that number, Gerard, has been consistent for the 22 years I’ve been here.

Okay, and then finally on the golf, are you -- are we going to see an up-tick in marketing expenses in the first quarter or have you already started to incur some of those expenses in preparation for your sponsorship of the tournament?

No, I’d say -- obviously we had some expense in the fourth quarter as we get ready for this tournament in February, but I’d say the major up-tick on that will be in the first quarter. Clearly we’re going to do what we can to moderate that as much as possible but I think it would be fair to say that, you know, it’s a significant event for us and we’ll feel that in the first quarter.

Sure. Okay, thank you.

Our next question comes from Thomas Mccrohan with Janney Montgomery Scott.

I just want to circle back quick to your sensitivity to equity market valuations and how your clients’ equity allocation decisions could potentially change depending upon return expectations? What has been your experience in the past with clients shifting their equity allocation levels of both PFS and CNIS during difficult equity markets and what were their allocations during past economic downturns?

You know, Tom, I think that’s a very difficult question to answer. You have within the -- we have such a wide spectrum of clients. You have the conservative clients and the aggressive clients. One pulls back and is very concerned about capital preservation and the other thinks there is a tremendous buying opportunity. So I would be hesitant to in the aggregate try and describe that phenomenon for you.

Have you seen -- at a minimum, can you comment on the last recessionary period, if you did see clients, both on the high net worth side, institutional side, reduce their proportion of equity exposure?

I don’t have the data that could validate that in front of me, Tom, so I’d prefer not to comment on it.

Fair enough. Okay, thanks.

Our next question comes from Brian Bedell with Merrill Lynch.

Steve, if I can ask maybe a little bit of a long question, but as we move into 2008, your thoughts about the momentum of organic growth in your main businesses? I guess what I’m getting at is the asset servicing business, the [inaudible] in the U.S., and then also if you can comment on your PFS business. When I see momentum of that organic growth, it has generally been on an up trend over the last several quarters. Do you see that momentum or improvement continuing into 2008 or do you think that maybe moderates somewhat, you know, if we are in a normal market environment let’s say. And then in spending on that, you mentioned a number of things in terms of accelerating expansion in India and other expenses [inaudible] with the global operating model, but do you feel well prepared from an infrastructure perspective to take on that new growth with limited additional expense, or do you think there’s a lot more expense in growth initiatives or infrastructure involved with that?

Well, let me try and address the first question to start with, which is the momentum question. I think one thing, I would say this on 2007 in the aggregate, because if you had said to us at the beginning of 2007, oil is going to move up 57% and credit spreads are going to widen dramatically and markets essentially for the year are going to be up the S&P 3.5% and the ESOP a little over 1%, and currency, the dollar is going to depreciate against 14 of the top 16 currencies and housing, sub-prime, et cetera, I am not sure you would have concluded that we would have had the momentum that we were able to garner in 2007. My point being it’s very hard to predict. If I speak to the question of new business, both in PFS and CNIS, remember that our new business results for PFS in 2007, they were up about 13% year over year, which was the best year we’ve had since 2001. If I look at CNIS, our new business was up 11% for the year, which is the best we’ve seen since 2000. So as to the momentum of winning core clients in the franchise, we feel very good about it. Now, will the environment dampen enthusiasm? I don’t know but in terms of competing in the marketplace, we feel very good and the results are the best we’ve seen in some time. As to the ability to have the infrastructure and support and capabilities to accommodate that growth, that is a never-ending quest. We feel very good about our capabilities but we are not done. We will continue to build out India. We will continue to build out Limerick. We will continue to invest in some technological capabilities for clients and so forth, so no, it’s -- you know, we feel good that we can support the clients but as our business continues to grow, the demands of our clients continue to evolve and we will need to spend. Obviously the question is trying to make sure that your rate of growth on revenue and expense are appropriate and as we’ve talked about before, we’ve had neutral or positive operating leverage 17 out of the last 20 years. We don’t get it right every year but our record is pretty good and that’s what we are going to try and do in 2008.

And do you think you have reasonable flexibility if the markets do turn down and volumes turn down in FX and securities lending? As you are spending out on these initiatives to build up the technology, do you feel that you have some expense flexibility to ratchet that down and still hit your goal of positive operating leverage in ’08?

Well, we do absolutely have some expense flexibility. The question is how big is the degradation in the markets and how does that impact our fee line? And also, how much do we want to do that? I mean, there are -- clearly we want to have positive operating leverage and that’s in our plan for 2008 and we will try to achieve that, but you also have to look at what you do and remember that you are in this business for the long term. So there are times if the markets are sharply down where our goals are on average over time across cycles and we’ll have to evaluate that as we go. So yes, we do have flexibility. We would use that if markets or the environment puts us in that position, but it’s not the only thing we’re striving to achieve.

Okay, and then just a couple of housekeeping questions; on the compensation line, the increase in the quarter, was there any factor in that from the Visa settlement in terms of incentive compensation?

No.

And on the securities lending, I understand you are trying to manage that I guess a little bit more for liquidity going forward. In other words, you wouldn’t be purchasing I guess riskier instruments on a go forward basis and so how you are managing the fund now obviously is sort of using the existing securities that you had already purchased, and so they should accrete back into lending fees. How should we think about that timing of that accruing back in, assuming they pay at par?

You know, as I said, it’s very difficult to project that but you know, between now and into 2009 and it’s hard to project the timing because the markets are extremely volatile.

Is that a safe assumption that you are managing it now more for liquidity or are you continuing to purchase instruments that have credit risk?

Well, everything has some credit risk but I would say we have a high degree of liquidity in that fund, but I certainly can’t say there’s no -- there is credit risk and there always will be.

Okay, and then just lastly, do you guys -- this might come out in the annual report, but would you be able to update us on your share of revenue and earnings from outside the U.S. for 2007?

You’ll have to wait until the financial annual report.

Okay, great. Thanks very much.

Our next question comes from Robert Lee with KBW. Robert Lee - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Just a quick question; on net interest income, if I remember correctly, I think you have it in the press release that through 2007, there was about $11 million or $13 million of adjustments related to how you had to account for leases. Does that reverse or go away in 2008?

Well, what you are referring to is the impact of FSP 13-2 which relates to the accounting for change and projected timing of cash flows related to leases. That’s a variable number because it depends on your projection of the resolution of some leasing issues. Our full year impact was $13 million, so a degradation to net interest income of $13 million, and the fourth quarter was about $3.5 million. So that can move around I guess is the answer. Robert Lee - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Okay, and I’m just curious, you’ve had such strong growth, particularly in the fourth quarter, your foreign office timed deposits. When you look ahead to the environment and client behavior, is there anything to make you think that the growth trajectory of that could slow, either because of client preference or was there a year-end liquidity surge and you sort of expected that would sort of back off? I mean, how should we think of that in ’08?

Well, if you have a good way to think about it, let me know. I think we have generally seen growth in foreign office timed deposits directionally move with the growth in global custody assets but obviously the liquidity that our clients have and leave with us is going to move around, so it’s a very hard number to predict. But directionally up. If you think we’re going to be a bigger and more successful asset servicer, we should on average over time continue to grow the non-U.S. office timed deposits, but it’s hard to land on the head of a pin. Robert Lee - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Okay, and I’m just interested in your thoughts behind this -- I noticed that over the course of the year I guess it was the investments and -- obviously short duration but investments in agency securities have declined, even though you’ve grown the balance sheet and clearly your money market assets on the balance sheet have grown. What was the -- was it just the environment, just unattractive spreads, just a desire to tighten up the balance sheet even more to make you shrink that?

When you think about our earning assets, what I would suggest that you do is we view our balance sheet investments in the securities portfolio, which are primarily agency securities, and in money market, assets is relatively interchangeable. And both are short-term, both are highly rated. So I would say that when you think about the two of those, you need to look at both categories together, all right? When we think about it from a spread perspective, the spread that we earn on our U.S. dollar deposits that are invested in U.S. currency, agencies, obviously, or money market assets would be comparable to the spread that we earn on Euro or Sterling deposits that are invested in time deposits in their respective currency. So look at the two together and think of it as we do in terms of comparable spreads that are earned based on how they are invested. Is that helpful? Robert Lee - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods: Yes, it is. Thank you. That’s it. Thanks.

The next question comes from James Mitchell with Buckingham Research.

A quick question back on the securities lending, obviously if you look at just adding back the $46 million, you were up 46% I think sequentially on a normalized basis, yet balances at least at period end were down. What is driving the sequential revenue growth? Is it just securities lending spreads as the short-term interest rates come down that your spreads are widening pretty meaningfully? And then if that’s true, how do we think about that if the Fed continues to cut rates? Does that continue to prop up those spreads and how that works through the system over ’08?

Well, the benefit of Fed rate cuts in part always depends on whether they are anticipated or unanticipated. Unanticipated rate cuts are good. Anticipated rate cuts kind of get priced in, if you will. So it depends -- the answer is it kind of depends what happens there. But the big phenomenon here, Jim, is this mark-to-market phenomenon and it kind of depends how that plays out and the pacing of it really depends what happens and do these things start to correct and at what speed.

Right, no, fair enough but how do we think about the sequential improvement on a -- if we sort of ignore the mark-to-market, you guys had a pretty big jump in the fourth quarter without really volumes growing. So what was the driver there? Was it spreads widening?

It was absolutely spreads widening, consistent with what you are hearing from others.

Okay, and it should be, since you are kind of -- you are investing in one to three month, basically money market rates versus short-term rates, and as long as short-term rates continue to come down, there’s going to be benefit, I would assume, vis-à-vis the money market rates, which are slower to catch up, I would say, right?

That’s the analysis that you’ve got to do.

Okay. Fair enough. And that the similar way to think about your net interest income in terms of your margin, which came up a little bit this quarter? Should we continue to see some benefits there?

Yes, it is the same. I think generally speaking, when rates come down we get a relatively short-term benefit that inures to us.

Okay, great. I just want to confirm that. Thanks.

The next question comes from David Long with William Blair.

Thanks. My questions have been answered.

Our next question comes from Ken Usdin with Banc of America.

Just two quick ones; first of all, just on the net interest margin as well, Steve, just given that last comment about lower short rates helping, are there any offsets or -- can you just walk through the positive and negative drivers I guess of the margin as you look out?

Well -- positives and negatives of the --

You’ve detailed in the past what things are either benefiting or hurting the margin, so I just want to make sure that -- is it more leaning to the positive of -- that the short rates coming down are more of the positive than anything else that you might experience as far as spreads or anything?

Well, when you have short rate -- you know, short rates coming down, if that’s the way you want to look at it, we also have the continued growth of the lower margin asset phenomenon. So you kind of have to triangulate amongst where you think rates are going on the one hand but also this continued growth in the non-U.S. office time deposit, which is good but they are generally lower margin assets than traditional loans. And that phenomenon too is continuing for us.

And that was my second question, which is can you just walk us through the loan growth, where you are seeing it, is it geographically diverse? Is it product specific? What are you seeing there?

We have had very good growth on the commercial front. We’ve had good growth on the personal front. It’s actually pretty broad-based, Ken, I’d say. So the loan portfolio for us has been extremely clean. As you know, our philosophy has been to be a relationship lender to those clients that fit our credit standards and our success on the loan portfolios is quite broad. But I guess the driver would be the commercial, the personal, and some of the activity we have internationally.

And the last question is just your ’07 results, like others, were really helped by the extremely strong volatility in volumes that we all saw in foreign exchange. I’m just wondering what your just broad market view is of the volatility conditions and relative to your thoughts on the broader market environment -- do you expect that to stay around or do you expect that to change or decrease over time?

Well, I’m not foreign exchange expert, Ken, so take this comment with a grain of salt -- look, conditions in 2007 from a foreign exchange perspective, both the volatility and in our case the volume were very strong. I mean, you had phenomenal results and you can look at the trend and see the history, and so it would be -- I can’t predict what the future will be but from a planning perspective, you certainly wouldn’t, or we certainly wouldn’t want to envision or assume, I should say, that same kind of volatility. It’s just been very, very strong. So where it’s going to land, I don’t know but those were very, very strong results and I think that’s worth keeping in mind as we move into 2008.

Okay. Thanks a lot.

Our final question is a follow-up from Brian Bedell with Merrill Lynch.

Sorry, just one quick follow-up; on the foreign office time deposits, I see the rate on those went down by about 23 basis points linked quarter -- can you just describe the factors that influenced that? Was that the Bank of England cut in December or are you able to effectively link some of that pricing to Fed rate cuts?

Our non-U.S. office time deposits are not exclusively in non-U.S. dollars. There are some dollar deposits in there so that would be partially I think where you are coming from, Brian.

Okay, so a continued Fed rate cutting campaign should be one factor in potentially driving that rate down in the future?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much.

And there are no further questions at this time. Mr. Fradkin, I would like to turn the conference back over to you for any additional or closing remarks.

Thank you all for joining us for our review and we’ll look forward to updating you at the end of the first quarter.

And this does conclude today’s conference. We appreciate your participation. You may now disconnect.