Good morning. My name is Carlos and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everybody to The PNC Financial Services Group Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Director of Investor Relations, Mr. Bryan Gill. Sir, please go ahead.

Well, thank you and good morning. Welcome to today’s conference call for The PNC Financial Services Group. Participating on this call are PNC’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bill Demchak and Rob Reilly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Today’s presentation contains forward-looking information. Our forward-looking statements regarding PNC performance assume a continuation of the current economic trends and do not take into account the impact of potential legal and regulatory contingencies. Actual results and future events could differ, possibly materially, from those anticipated in our statements and from historical performance due to a variety of risks and other factors. Information about such factors, as well as GAAP reconciliations and other information on non-GAAP financial measures we discuss, is included in today’s conference call, earnings release and related presentation materials and in our 10-K, 10-Q and other SEC filings and investor materials. These are all available on our corporate website, pnc.com, under Investor Relations. These statements speak only as of July 14, 2017 and PNC undertakes no obligation to update them. Now, I would like to turn the call over to Bill Demchak.

Thanks, Bryan and good morning, everybody. As you have seen this morning, PNC reported net income of $1.1 billion or $2.10 per diluted common share in the second quarter. You likely also saw our announcement last week regarding the dividend. Following the CCAR stress test results last month, we announced a 36% increase in our common stock dividend raising it to an all-time high of $0.75 per common share. In addition, we plan to repurchase up to $2.7 billion of PNC shares over the next four quarters, which would be a 17% increase over last year’s buyback as we work to return more capital to shareholders. As Rob is going to layout in a bit more detail, this is a pretty good quarter for us. I am particularly pleased with our loan growth this quarter, C&IB, in particular, grew 4% in the quarter, helped by the E&C equipment finance acquisition and a slight uptick in utilization, but beyond that, it was particularly impressive, because it was across the board, including the traditional commercial middle-market segments where we really haven’t seen a sustained growth for several years. Expenses were in line with our guidance although there are certain categories in there that were bit higher than I would have liked and Rob is going to give you more color on this, but it was a bunch of give and takes and I assure you that we remain focused here. As you saw, credit remained benign and fee income was up, some of it driven by seasonally higher customer activity. Obviously, we are pleased to see another interest rate increase by the fed in June and NII was up on the back of higher rates in the previously mentioned loan growth. Now, on the flipside, I’d say we underperformed a bit this…

Thanks, Bill and good morning, everyone. As Bill just mentioned, our second quarter net income was $1.1 billion or $2.10 per diluted common share. Our balance sheet is on Slide 4 and is presented on an average basis. Total loans grew by $4.1 billion or 2% linked quarter. Commercial lending was up $4.4 billion from the first quarter as we saw broad-based growth in nearly every category. This growth also reflected the impact of a $1 billion loan and lease portfolio acquired as part of the ECN transaction, which closed in the early second quarter. Consumer lending decreased by approximately $300 million linked quarter as declines in home equity and education lending were somewhat offset by increases in residential real estate, auto lending and credit card. On a spot basis, we saw a slight increase in consumer lending driven by growth in residential mortgage, auto and credit card loans. Investment securities decreased by approximately $900 million linked quarter, maturities and payoffs outpace net purchases as we saw fewer opportunities for reinvestment given the flat yield curve environment during much of the second quarter. On a spot basis, investment securities were essentially flat as we increased our purchase activity toward the end of June. Compared to the same quarter a year ago, average securities were up $5.2 billion or 7%. Our interest-earning deposits with banks mostly at the Federal Reserve averaged $22.5 billion for the second quarter, down $1.6 billion from the first quarter. On a spot basis, balances held with the Federal Reserve declined $5.4 billion in part reflecting loan growth. On the liability side, total deposits increased by $1.5 billion or 1% compared to the first quarter driven by consumer deposits. As of June 30, 2017, our fully phased-in Basel III common equity Tier 1 ratio was estimated to…

Carlos could you please give us the first question.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of John Pancari with Evercore. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning.

Hi, good morning John.

Regarding the guidance, I know you just indicated that you maintains the full year ‘17 guidance, why not up particularly the revenue guidance, it’s still at the upper end of the mid single-digit range with the guidance is, but you clearly head upside to that this quarter and just curious why not move that? Thanks.

Yes. Hi John, good morning, it’s Rob. Well, we are pleased with our results obviously in the second quarter and we are well positioned for the balance of the year, but there is still a lot of the year to go. So we are still comfortable with that guidance in the upper end of the mid single-digit range that we talked about on the first quarter call and the second quarter results play into that.

Okay. And I guess tied to that the loan growth guidance you also didn’t change that, I mean is there an expectation that you are going to come off this high single-digit level where you are operating right now on an annualized basis from loan growth back to that mid single-digit range, is that why you are not moving that, is that one of the drivers?

Well we are sort of mid single-digits right now year-over-year. So that’s why we are still calling to stay in that range.

Despite the linked quarter annualized being in the high single-digit range?

Yes, that’s right, more in terms of the year than in terms of the run rate.

Okay, alright. Then lastly the – I just want to get your updated thoughts around the BlackRock stake Bill, just there is clearly given the expectations around potential tax reform and etcetera, there is still a lot of interest in what – how soon you could move on that if you decide to and what you could do with the capital, so again just looking to get your updated thoughts? Thanks.

I don’t know that I have any updated thoughts beyond what we have discussed in the past. We will wait and see obviously if there was some form of tax reform at the margin that would help us should we be interested in moving the position. But we haven’t come to that conclusion. It’s been a good investment. We will get a return on capital and they are a great company. So as we have said before, we will be good stewards of capital or watch what happens as it relates to regulation, capital requirements and tax policy and make decisions, informed decisions when real things happen.

Alright. Thank you.

Thanks John.

Our next question comes from the line of Betsy Graseck with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

Hi Betsy.

Hey, a couple questions. One is on the new offices, new geographies that you are looking to expand into, could you give us a sense of the timing of the size of these geographies relative to the expansion that you did a few years back in Dallas, Minneapolis and Kansas City, just want to get a sense of opportunity from these new locations versus what you have been able to deliver from the most recent expansion cities?

Well, the – we will just start back at the beginning. We chose a year and change ago to go national with our middle market franchise, independent of whether we had a retail presence there, because we were pretty confident about our ability to succeed given what we have seen in the Southeast. We then targeted markets and we have a fairly long list of them where we already have a national presence in some of our national businesses I think real estate, treasury management business credit and so forth. And then looked at just broad potential client opportunities inside of those markets that led us into Kansas City, Minneapolis and Dallas as a start and the same as we go, Nashville, Houston and Denver. Those markets, as an aside, in terms of potential targets of middle-market clients on average are better than the markets we are in, which is what’s driving us there. So, we think there is a big opportunity. Now, I would tell you we are just recently up and running in Dallas, Minneapolis and Houston, we have got a bit of business we have the teams in place, but its early days and the strategy through that will be as we did in the Southeast. We are going to be patient. We are going to get to know that communities become part of the communities, cover the right clients with the right products and the right people and through time we have kind of proven to ourselves again and again that we will win business, but it takes time.

Okay. And then just when you say better than – it’s “better” market than the markets you are in, is that just a simple….

Simple targets, how many companies are out there that need – middle-market companies think of them $500 million to $1 billion that need the products and services that we offer. When we go head-to-head with that type of client with any competitor in the market, we have a good chance of winning. And when we are in the market locally delivering products and services locally, it increases our odds.

Yes, Betsy, this is Rob. I can add to that. As you know, the source of our optimism in terms of these markets comes from our success in the Southeast, where our commercial products and services have sold very well maybe in the – maybe to a certain extent more than we expected on relatively thin retail presence. So based on that success, we are taking it to these other markets where as Bill mentioned we have a presence and we think we will be able to continue to succeed on that basis.

Okay. And then expansion into consumer from there, from these new markets, is that in the long-term plan or not a part of this?

It’s not a part of our current thinking. I would tell you that as our clients increasingly become digital, there is a storyline that suggest that on a digital basis, we are national today and those markets become relevant to us on a retail basis through digital, but not in the traditional retail sense.

Great, got it. Okay, thanks so much.

Thanks, Betsy.

Our next question comes from the line of Erika Najarian with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi. Good morning.

Hi, Erika.

Hi Erika.

My first question is you are clearly continuing to outperform your peers in terms of your deposit cost pass-through and I am wondering what your thoughts are in terms of the impact of the Fed balance sheet reduction in terms of outflows for your particular deposit base and how that could shift the beta outlook?

I guess, we had a – let’s just talk about what’s going on with betas first and then we will talk about Fed balance sheet, which is a whole other question. On the beta side, we have been effectively at zero on the retail side. We have seen some mix shift as customers have come out of our promo money market into our sort of relationship base rate that we pay in our virtual wallet product, but net-net we have seen, what, Rob, a couple of basis points of increase since the start of the increase in higher rates. In C&IB, you have a mix, the basic, I’ll it hot money from corporates has a beta effectively of 90%. It kind of trades right on top of government money funds. And then there is another block of money that’s compensating balances for TM that has much lower beta and that probably continues. I think what happens through time. So, we will see when the Fed makes the decision to reduce its balance sheet and they have announced that they will do that somewhat gradually and through time that will drive liquidity out of the market. We will see the biggest impact of that in my view coming out of the corporate side first, which has the highest beta therefore it has the least impact on us. I think the consumer side is going to be driven frankly by continued increases in short-term rates by the Fed as opposed to the necessary shrinking of their balance sheet, which is going to occur over the course of years, the way they have scheduled it out.

Got it. And my second question is, Bill, you mentioned that you made some leadership changes in consumer lending and you are continuing to focus on ramping it up, but I am wondering if you can give us just a little bit more detail on some of the change in strategy in terms of how you are approaching your market here?

Sure. It’s going back in history, our focus on retail was serving the client and primarily focused on getting the household DDA account as the primary product, right, as we made a lot of money on deposits and rates were higher. And lending was treated, frankly, as an ancillary business. It was not a focus. And through time, we just didn’t have the market share with our clients that we should in terms of penetration with consumer products. So, it’s not a lot more complicated than that. The result of that strategy led to underinvestment in technology we were slow in fulfillment. We were slow in creativity of the way we offered products through digital and e-signature and all the rest and that’s what we are working on. So, we are not jumping into – people asked the question why you are going to jump into consumer at a time when you necessarily see consumer delinquencies increasing. We are not really changing the credit that we are going to go after. We just need to go after the clients we already have with a competitive product and delivered in a way that is much simpler than we have done historically.

So enhancing our competency really rather than changing risk profile.

I see. Got it. Thank you, guys.

Thanks, Erika.

Our next question comes from the line of John McDonald with AB Global. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning guys. I was wondering about the competitive environment in commercial lending had a nice move up in loan yields this quarter from the Fed hikes. How have spreads been and what are the competitive environments on spreads?

Spreads actually increased quarter-on-quarter at the margin, I think across basically all products.

Yes, yes, small increases, but increases.

It remains competitive. Our loan growth basically comes from winning clients and a bit of a – there is a bit of a mix shift, we had, had some declines in asset-based lending I think as borrowers went to cash flow, that’s come back so we have seen growth in asset base where we have been kind of flat to down for a couple of quarters. In fact, we are seeing and this is a good sign, increase in utilization and asset-based on the manufacturing side would suggest maybe there is some strength behind, I guess we saw it in industrial production today behind the manufacturing economy.

Do you see that in core middle-market as well, Bill, the utilization increase or is this still you still winning business more?

It was up a bit middle-market as well. And as I said in my comments in commercial, which is the 10 to 50 think about a space, this is the second quarter in a row for us for growth, which we had been declining as first as we burn off balances from RBC and National City, but that’s really good news to me. And in the middle-market space, it’s as much just winning clients but we have had four or five quarters of growth and this is – middle-market itself was I think 4% quarter-on-quarter growth, additional non-specialty product basic loans.

And on the consumer side, Bill, is it too early to have an early read on the Zelle rollout? Are the customers kind of starting to know about it and understand it and feel comfortable using it?

It’s very early days. We have been up and running here on our virtual wallet app. We haven’t yet rolled it out. We are going to do so in a couple of weeks into our traditional online app. I think across the market awareness is up from zero to what is it 8% or something now. Much higher than that is more transactions go through. There has been a little bit of publicity about inconsistency in performance and some other things that frankly doesn’t surprise me given the rollout of the new product that has a number of products that are trying to do it all at the same time, but we remain really bullish and it’s kind of performing as expected at this point.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

Yes. Thanks, John.

Our next question comes from the line of Matt O’Connor with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning. This is Rob from Matt’s Team. Just first on capital markets this quarter, anything in particular that drove the strength and maybe your outlook for the second half?

Sure. In terms of this particular quarter, capital markets, at least in the way that we define it, our loan syndications and loan underwriting had a particularly good quarter. And then as I mentioned in the opening comments, Harris Williams, our M&A advisory shop, had a very good quarter comparable to their very good quarter in the first quarter, so not up a lot linked quarter, but a lot up year-to-date. So, yes, we feel good about that. As far as the second half of the year, that’s all baked into our guidance. For the third quarter, we expect our corporate services, of which capital markets is part of to be down a bit, but for the balance of the year consistent with our guidance.

Okay. And then a similar question on treasury management, this is the business you have highlighted you made some significant investments in, again anything in particular drive the strength this quarter and should we think about this as being the new run rate going forward?

Yes. I think so, I mean in terms of our treasury management we have been talking about it, highlighting it as it’s our largest business inside corporate service, fits very well with our lending product and part of the success that we are having there is part of the increased activity, but also the investments that we are making in those products and services, so yes I think the run rate is good.

We are just executing on the plan?

Yes. Executing on the plan, that’s right.

Okay, thanks very much.

Sure.

Our next question comes from the line of Scott Siefers with Sandler O’Neill. Please go ahead.

Good morning guys. Rob I was hoping you could spend a second talking about mortgage gain on sale margins coming under pressure for you and others, which is definitely expected at this point in the cycle, but I guess order of magnitude might be a little more than I would have anticipated, could you speak a little to sort of the competitive trend you are seeing, how things are coming in versus sort of what you would have expected and sort of where we go from here?

Yes. I think if you take a look at the mortgage – the mortgage fees, it’s clearly softer. As far as the margins go, they are down a bit from what we have had. As you know about us, our margins are typically higher because we don’t to the brokered mortgage products. So where we guide to $300 million, I think this quarter we came in at $274 million or something, which really reflects the make shifts, refis way down and purchases were actually up a bit. So going forward we sort of the guide towards stable, maybe we will see an increase in some of the refis here and again in Q3 which will help some of the margins, but we are still sticking to and managing to and expecting $300 million…

I would tell you though. There is an internal debate volume versus margin here within our own teams, so we are kind of saying stable, but I think it is one of the things that we got to watch, because it clearly has become more competitive inside a market that’s shrinking.

So same place that we acknowledge the pressure.

Yes, okay, alright. Thank you. And then may be switching gears a little, so your balances on deposit with the Fed, I think are the lowest they have been in last few years, just wondering if you could talk about liquidity deployments sort of further liquidity deployment as you would – opportunities as you would see and how much more is there to go so to speak?

Look, deployment this quarter was basically through quality loan growth, so to the extent we continue to see that we are happy to draw down on the balances with the Fed and we have a lot of room to be able to do that. Security balances you saw were basically flat and yields on security balances were basically flat. So I don’t know that you will see us in a race to move money into term rate markets at this point, but to extent we get healthy loan growth we will draw down on those balances.

Thanks. Okay, good. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, Scott.

Our next question comes from the line of Ken Usdin with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question.

Alright. Thanks very much guys. Good morning.

Hi Ken.

Hey, I just wanted to ask you a little bit, can you help us understand how much of the quarter was helped by the lease deal, do we get more of that run rating into the third quarter and trying to just understand the magnitude of benefits to the overall picture?

Yes. I – generally speaking Ken, for the full year the acquisition it is pretty de minimis. Where it showed up somewhat materially is this quarter and most of that was in the form of the credit provision which was the initial provision set up as part of the acquisition. So, it shows up a bit here in the second quarter, but the balance of the year it will fade.

Okay. And then so expenses obviously, Rob you pointed reported to operating leverage, you are definitely growing revenues far faster than expenses and this year you did pivot a little bit away from just focusing on dollars of expenses as opposed to just the leverage and the efficiency ratio, so I just wanted – if you can kind of help us understand pacing revenues good, so expenses are higher, but revenue growth was 5% year-over-year – expense growth sorry was 5% year-over-year, the timing of just your investments versus your saves and all those structured programs that you had walked us though in the last couple of months, can you just give us an update on that?

Yes, sure. So I am glad to clarify that our revenues was 6.5, the expense growth is 5%. I think when you take a look at the expenses and Bill mentioned in his comments, we remained very focused on it intensely and that’s part of our continuous improvement program which funds the investments that we are making. When you look at the quarter, the other expense of $666 million is higher than what it’s been. We guide to $625 million to $700 million, so it’s a little higher than the middle of that range and most of that is due to timing. So if you back off a little bit Ken just in the spirit of your question and look at other expenses as a component of expense year-to-date compared ‘17 – compared to ‘16 year-to-date it’s $1.291 billion compared to last year six months $1.245 billion. That difference of $46 million is almost entirely due to the FDIC surcharge. So everything else offsets itself except for the FDIC surcharge. Now as you know that was implemented in the third quarter of last year, so when we get into the back half of the year that comp becomes a little easier.

Understood, okay. Thanks a lot Rob.

Sure.

Next question?

Our next question comes from the line of Gerard Cassidy with RBC. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning Rob and good morning Bill.

Hi Gerard.

Good morning.

I got a question on the middle market success that you had and I think Bill you mentioned that there seem to be more lending going to asset backed from the cash flow lending, are you guys picking up market share in addition to showing this growth, is there any evidence of that?

I think it’s all I mean beyond the increase in some utilization and the equipment finance acquisition, it’s all market share. Some of that’s in ABL, but frankly the middle market commercial wins are basically on-boarding new clients and the balances that come with them.

And similar to shat we said before it’s just a function of executing our strategies in those geographies and those product areas.

I see. And credit is obviously very strong for you and your peers, when you talk to Hannon [ph] and others looking at credit on a day-to-day basis, are there any issues on the horizon that they are focused on, again I know it’s not going to come soon, but where do they spend their time today?

I am sorry, I have not followed who are we talking about our credit people or…?

Yes. Your credit…?

We focus on all the headline items that you read about whether its oil and gas or retail exposure or auto ticking up or card, but none of that is kind of showing up inside of our numbers. Because we really never changed our credit box and have it on the consumer side and all else equal to consumer remains healthy notwithstanding certain consumer products in the sub-prime space struggling. We have oil and gas issues appear at this point to be less than they have once were and retail is going to play out through a lot of – long period of time. We are going to have to see how that plays out given the strength of online.

But we are – but by design diversified in terms of our loan portfolio in each of those buckets although we feel good about them are small percentages of the overall portfolio.

Good. And I assume since your shared national credit exam was done in the spring, your second quarter results would reflect any comments from the regulators on the SNC [ph] exam?

Yes, fully…

Okay, good. And then just lastly Bill I mean you guys have done a phenomenal job on the acquisitions of Nat City and Riggs National and RBC, the markets have certainly changed now and you have been very disciplined in the way you approached acquisitions, if you look out over the next 2 years to 3 years, do you envision CCAR to CCAR banks combining, these are banks over $50 billion in assets combining maybe with $200 billion bank and what’s your view on where PNC would fit into that process?

I will just speak through own situation and we have been pretty consistent on this. It’s really difficult to come up with a case current valuations where we would be interested in buying a traditional bank franchise that the business itself has changed in terms of the percentage is going digital but the need for branches has lessen. We don’t like the balance sheets, I mean all the issues I have gone though before. Having said that, across the industry I would expect that people are subscale, that are subscale and you can define that however you want are going to feel the need to merge to be able to compete with that increasing investments necessary to serve consumers. What’s going to be allowed by the regulatory regime I don’t know, but I don’t think you are going to see us be a player inside of that consolidation other than just buying growing – sorry just growing share organically which we have been successful at doing.

No doubt. Speaking in the subscale how does this technology spending do you think fits into your definition of subscale, do you think that could be a real catalyst for some banks that they just can’t afford to keep up with the technology spending, especially with the digitalization of banking that you guys have grasped effectively?

Yes. I think without question the base cost of getting the right infrastructure and then being able to integrate that in terms of your offerings to clients. There is a lot of money. You have seen us spend it out and we continue to spend. And it doesn’t shrink dramatically as you reduced the size of the institution in terms of the total dollars you are spending.

In fact that it’s a primary driver really in terms of the industry.

Guys, I appreciate your insights as always. Thank you.

See you, Gerard.

Our next question comes from the line of Kevin Barker with Piper Jaffray. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning. Could you speak to how spreads have changed in recent months with several competitors pulling back from the auto market and your overall view in the competitive dynamics given that there has been quite a shift in who is involved and who is not involved in the market at this point?

Just in auto specifically?

Auto specifically.

Yes. We have – just to remind you, we are not in the lease business, we are not in the sub-prime business. I think our average FICO on that is at 740. So, our credit life hasn’t changed, so we continue to see growth. So, we haven’t pulled back. We just have never – we never stuck our toes over the edge of the cliff.

Yes. We are not playing in the space that you are obviously referencing. And just to add that even, our tenure – our average tenure is 71 months. So, it just gives you a sense of the quality of the book.

Versus a couple years ago, our growth as slowed, but we are still growing that book.

Yes.

Okay. And then in regards to the Check Ready product that you introduced, could you give us an update on the penetration of that?

On the auto.

Yes.

Well, yes, the Check Ready product is an important product that we have particularly on our direct auto portfolio, which is growing as well. So, it’s….

Much higher percentage.

Yes and new volume included…

But mobile Check Ready comes out, I mean, kind of now third quarter, which gets launched basically and you can effectively apply and accept on your mobile app as opposed to doing it through branch or online.

So, are you seeing an increased amount of percentage in that product in the penetration of it or is it still very early days before you can really see?

Well, it’s growing at a much higher percentage off a smaller base.

Yes, it’s a small book. So of our $12 billion in auto loans, $2 billions is direct, $10 billion is indirect.

Okay. And then shift gears on commercial deposits, you saw about a $1.1 billion decline in your non-interest bearing commercial deposits – in the commercial deposits roughly 10% on an annualized basis. Could you speak to the shift that you are seeing there, where the short end of the yield curve is now and what your expectations are for outflows in non-interest bearing deposits on the commercial side?

Yes. I think most of the decline that you are referring to is on an average basis and most of that seasonality, actually commercial deposits on a spot basis increased in the quarter. So, I talked most of that up to seasonality and then everything going forward relates really what Bill is talking about earlier on the beta question in terms of some of the movement there. So first and foremost, seasonality in the second quarter going forward is part of this beta discussion and sort of the hot money how that behaves versus the traditional relationship money.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Our next question comes from the line of Saul Martinez with UBS. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning. Yes, David Eads on for Saul. Maybe following up on the deposit, I think in the comment earlier, it sounds like maybe we are on the early stages of seeing a little bit of competition on the consumer side as well. But I just want to see if you had any – if you are seeing anything of people kind of competing for marginal depositors or any kind of seeing competitors start getting promotional, whether anything has shifted in your outlook for how the consumer betas might end up trajectorying from here?

We really haven’t seen a shift either in our own strategy or from our competitors.

On the consumer side.

On the consumer side. There is obviously a small, but growing online presence of deposit gatherers who are paying well above what traditional bank pays, but it’s a tiny percentage of total consumer deposits. I think we are a couple of moves away from the Fed before you start really seeing the positive beta shift on the consumer side.

Okay, thanks. And then have you guys given any color on how much of the growth, you talk about the kind of broad-based growth and taking share on the commercial lending side, how much of that came from the new growth markets versus your legacy markets, I know you don’t traditionally give any kind of breakout there, but I was just curious if you could give any sense there?

Yes, most of that would be more in the Southeast as you know with these other markets were new. Legacy growth is there, but the Southeast markets are going at a faster rate.

Yes, on a percentage basis.

On a percentage basis.

Sure. Balance wise, its spread across all our markets.

Yes that’s right.

Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you.

Sure.

Our next question comes from the line of Brian Foran with Autonomous. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, guys. I was wondering if you could ask about capital maybe longer term. So, I’d think and correct me if I am misstating this, but I think when you have kind of talked about the big picture for you guys on capital, it’s been somewhere in the 8s as a CET1 target, but the challenging getting there has always been the CCAR, partly because of the process and partly because the tendency to outperform your budget or your capital plan, which we see with earnings as well. So I realize the treasury white paper is – it’s not even really at proposal stage, just like a broad recommendation stage. But just conceptually if CCAR did change, if buybacks in balance sheet growth were less part of the process or not a part of the process at all, I mean, you really don’t lose money even in this really adverse scenarios, so how would that change your thinking or the timing around your excess capital position?

That’s an involved question. Yes, I guess in its simplest form and the industry has proposed this that CCAR got to a place where we could rely on our own models as opposed to necessarily Fed output. So we had more certainty on outcomes and what we actually believed was risk. We would be more aggressive in returning capital than we are today maybe that’s a simplest answer. Now, all of that is hypothetical, because as you said while there is comments on that inside the treasury paper, they are just comments at this point and we will see what in fact happens with the CCAR process as we go forward.

And maybe just speaking on the same theme, as you look through all the proposals or recommendations in that paper, are there any that stand out to you as most impactful for your business or your outlook?

I mean two in particular. I like the fact that they reference you should look at what a company actually does is to use arbitrary size thresholds in the way you set regulations. So we have the $50 billion and the $250 billion and wherever the G-SIFIs come in. We actually like the systemic risk indicated that they used to identify G-SIFIs as a measure to look at the riskiness of a firm. And were they to do that, we would fall well down from some of the people we are bucketed with today on LCR. And on LCR itself inside of treasury paper, they also talk about the fact that they should re-look at some of the assumptions broadly for the whole market as it relates to liquidity requirements and the impact that, that’s having on loan growth.

So, those would be our two biggest and obviously they are related, regulation driven towards the complexity and the risk versus arbitrary size.

That’s very helpful. Thank you.

Yes.

Our next question is a follow-up from Brian Klock with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning gentlemen.

Hi Brian.

So it’s actually not a follow-up. But I do have a couple of just items that you guys haven’t addressed yet, Rob earlier you mentioned the equipment expense for the quarter included an asset impairment charge, do you have the amount of that asset impairment charge in the quarter?

We haven’t disclosed that Brian, but what I can tell you is that’s unpredictable and lumpy. It happened to show up in the second quarter here, so I would expect equipment expense to decline quarter-over-quarter.

Okay. And so you think something that’s more in line with the first quarter level, is first quarter…?

Yes. More in line with the first quarter level, a little above that because there is the ECN as I mentioned in my comments there is the ECN component, but with that below second quarter levels.

Okay. And then just quickly on the ECN, out of the $1 billion of leases that you guys acquired on the asset side, how much of that are actually operating versus finance leases…?

Yes. Actually of the $1.1 billion portfolio, the majority are loans that are pulled through in terms of the industry classification. The leases within that are about $100 million and most of those are the split. So the answer to your question is its more loans than leases.

Okay. So there is no depreciation expense or maintenance or anything like that that’s coming from the portfolio, if you have anything here in equipment would be the…?

That’s right.

Got it, okay. And I am just thinking about, I know you guys haven’t been giving the updated purchase accounting accretion, I know at the end of the year you talked about expected…?

Yes, great job.

Right. I was sorry about that, but the margin has been good even with the headwinds where you guys have talked about $75 million expected drop, so I just wanted to – is it still on pace, is it what you guys have expected?

Yes. Exactly on pace, $75 million decline, we are right on track which you would expect because as we get to these smaller levels the predictability is easier because the recoveries which always added volatility to that number are much smaller by definition because of where we are in the aging.

Got it, okay. So I think the 278 last year so are you in – first half of the year you are on 140 million it’s about…?

You got. It comes down – yes, it comes down over time, but 278 and down 75 for the year. We will hit that number.

Got it. So it’s probably closer to 100 for the first half of the year?

Yes, depending on how you add that, that’s right. Full year decline, that’s right.

Got it, fair enough. Thanks for your time guys.

Sure.

Our next question comes from the line of Marty Mosby with Vining Sparks. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I wanted to ask you kind of bigger picture question when you talk about going in the markets, I mean the Southeast was a market where you did have an acquisition and some presence and now you are going in the markets where you don’t have that, the competition or the competitive advantage that you bring to the table what are couple of things that gives you the confidence that you can go in and win business from folks that are have been sitting in those markets over time?

Well, a couple of things. First is the markets we are going into we have had presence just not on the retail side. So we have had corporate clients there from our national businesses for years and we have had people in the markets there. What gives us confidence is over time simply as we become a larger company and a better known company and bluntly a company that is known to execute well on the C&IB space, we have been able to attract outstanding employees from some of our competitors. And as we open a market, we basically posted and we have been able to find lots of our internal up and comers who want to move and grow their careers in the new market. So we go there with great people, with great products and services. We put product, people and credit people in the market so we are local. We go in with the regional presidents model so that we could get involved with the local community. We introduced Grow Up Great, our philanthropic effort for early childhood education. And then we are patient, the better clients that you want to target are already well banked, we understand that. You call on them for a couple of years with good ideas and you are patient about it, they will come to recognize that and you get business and we have just proven that over and over again, in particular in the markets that we entered in the Southeast and we think it’s going to work in these other new markets.

Thanks. And then Rob when we look at the credit, the biggest question we still push back is we are far along in this recovery and long in the tooth, it’s been 8 years, so the credit cycle has to turn?

Yes.

Our number show that when we will look at the monitor, the R Index, we are kind of slowly kind of navigating back to neutral, but there isn’t really any pressure, you are showing that in your credit numbers non-performers continuing to improve, you are still providing less and you have a net charge-off, so what are the tenets right now that should also give us some confidence which we believe is there that credit should stay stable to historically low for the next 12 months to 18 months?

Well, I think we talked about here on this call in terms of from the credit perspective we feel good about all our portfolios. The consumer is in very good shape as you know and on the corporate side everything even in the categories that are talked about and have scrutiny in the public arena we feel good about that’s the short-term. I will say though these are very low cost in terms of credit costs on a historical basis. So we will see some normalization, but…

We said – we would have told you this time last year that a year from now we ought to be from what we were 20 basis points this quarter. We are going to get to 40 basis points and 50 basis points through time. You would think just go and put a timeline on that because it’s not showing up as you said in any of the day-to-day on the models we run today.

And you can’t really just migrate to the average, you kind of even though we are kind of neutralizing that neutralization is probably 10 basis points to 15 basis points, there maybe even 20 basis points, but not a real shock step up in the sense of credit costs or provisioning given that I think there has been constraints in the industry that have caused folks to be a little bit stronger.

I mean, look it will be a migration. I can’t I mean I don’t know what it is that would cause a shock, but credit costs for our provision or our model based on an improvement or deterioration of the overall portfolio through a period of time. And what we have seen while you would – we would expect that as we got longer in this cycle you would see some deterioration or at least less recovery and less strength, yes. It just hasn’t shown up. And what it does, it will probably be at the margin and creep up and not jump to a much higher level.

Thanks. And Rob thanks for highlighting the short-term rates being higher, being the benefit for margin, a lot of misconception about what long end does here, but the short end is what’s driving a lot of this results and that was good to see in your presentation.

Well and loan growth.

Yes. Thank you, all.

Carlos do we have any more questioners.

No sir, there are no further questions.

Alright. Well, thank everybody and we will see you next quarter.

Thank you.