Welcome to the SunTrust fourth quarter earnings conference call. Parties will be on a listen-only mode until the question-and-answer session of today’s conference. (Operator instruction) I’d like to introduce your speaker, Mr. Steve Shriner, the Director of Investor Relations.

Good morning, welcome to SunTrust’s fourth quarter earnings conference call. Thank you for joining us. In addition to the press release, we’ve also provided a presentation that covers the topics we planned to address during the call today. Slide two outlines the content, which includes an overview of the quarter, financial results discussion and an in-depth credit review. Press release presentation and detailed financial schedules are available on our website, which is www.suntrust.com. This information can be accessed by going to the Investor Relations section of the website. With me today, among other members of our Executive Management team are Jim Wells, our Chief Executive Officer; Mark Chancy, our Chief Financial Officer; and Tom Freeman, our Chief Risk Officer. Jim will start the call with an overview of the quarter, Mark will then discuss financial performance, and Tom will conclude with the review of asset quality. At the conclusion of formal remarks, we’ll open the session for questions. Before I get started, I need to remind that our comments today may include forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainty, and actual result to differ materially. We list the factors that may cause actual results to differ materially in our press release and SEC filing, which are also available on our website. Further, we do not intend to update any forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made and we disclaim any responsibility to do so. During the call, we’ll discuss non-GAAP financial measures in talking about the company’s performance. You can find the reconciliation of these measures to GAAP financial measures in our press release and on the website. Finally, SunTrust does not responsible for and does not edit nor guarantee the accuracy of our earnings teleconference transcripts provided by third parties. The only authorized live and archived webcast are located on our website. With that, I’ll turn it over to Jim.

Good morning, again. I’d like to join with Steve and thanking for being with us this morning. As has been the case for several quarters now, our results were affected by the challenging economic environment. We reported $0.64 per share loss for the fourth quarter and $3.98 loss for the full year. As you would expect in this type of operating environment revenue was soft, loan demand was down and asset quality was weak. So like last quarter, they were certain positive operating trends. The most notable positive in the fourth quarter was improved credit trends from the prior quarter. Both credit losses and early stage to delinquencies declined, and non-performing loans were stable. Further deposit growth and the positive mix shift continued. The Net interest margin significantly expanded and certain businesses delivered very solid revenue growth. Now before we provided detail on the results, I want to point out that our optimism is certainly tempered during those positive trends, especially those related to credit. The economy remains far from strong and there’s more uncertainty and then clarity in the outlook. As I’ve said before, the beginning of recovery is just added to beginning, history tells us that it will take sometime before economics stabilization meaningfully translate in the bottom line results. Asset quality revenues and ultimately earnings improvement will need time to gain transaction and that timing is largely dependent from the strength and sustainability of the economic recovery. Now taking a closer look at the overall results, revenue remains soft with stable net interest income and a small increase in non-interest income over the same quarter last year. Unchanged net interest income was the result of a significantly improved net interest margin, which was offset by the reduction in average earning assets. An increase in client deposits, improved…

Thanks, Jim and good morning, everybody. I’ll begin my comments today on slide five of the earnings presentation with a summary income statement. For the quarter, we posted a loss to common shareholders of $316 million or $0.64 per share. As has been the case in recent quarters, our financial results continued to be dominated by credit losses, cyclically sensitive expenses and to a lesser extend soft revenue generation in certain units. In particular for the quarter, loan demand remained weak, and mortgage production income was negatively impacted by the cost associated with the potential repurchase of mortgage loans originated and sold the government agencies in prior periods On the other hand, there are some positive operating trends that I will also point out. Most notably is the decline in provision, primarily driven by lower charge-offs. Additionally, margin and net interest income increased as the deposit mix continued to improve, while core client deposits grew. I’ll cover this reported result in more detail in just a minute. For the full year 2009, the loss to common shareholders was $3.98 per share, and $2.34 per share, if you exclude the impacted of $750 million in goodwill impairment reported in the first quarter. In addition to the impact of goodwill impairment on expenses, there were several areas driving a net loss in 2009, compared to a profit in 2008. The biggest impact of course was credit quality. Provision for credit losses increased by $1.6 billion, as charge-offs rough doubled to $3.2 billion, and we increased the allowance for loan losses by one-third to $3.1 billion. Non-interest income decline by $760 million, compared to 2008’s level, and while overall fee generation was somewhat impacted by recessionary pressures. The decline was largely due to the absence of gains associated with the Coke stock transactions…

Thank you, Mark. This morning, I’m going to review our asset quality, beginning on slide 13. As Jim mentioned earlier in the call, we noted some asset quality stabilization this quarter. Short term delinquencies, 90 day-plus delinquencies and charge-offs all continued to decline, along with entrance in to the foreclosure queues. Non-performing assets remained flat for the quarter. This is notable as the fourth quarter particularly, for consumers is seasonally expected to show increases in default and delinquencies. In fact, charge-offs declined in every category with the sole exception of construction, where we continued to make progress in the workout of our residential construction book. Please turn to slide 14 for a review of the loan portfolio. This portfolio view of asset quality illustrates our fourth quarter improvement in both charge-offs and early-stage delinquencies. While trends showed improvement, absolute asset quality issues remained centered in the residential real estate related portfolios, including residential mortgages, home equity products, and residential construction. The commercial portfolio continues to perform reasonably well overall. Commercial loan charge-offs, early-stage delinquency and non-performing loans all declined in the quarter. We continued to see stress in more cyclically sensitive industries, and our small business portfolio with improvements in large corporate. We expect that we could continue to see variability in asset quality in the C&I portfolio from quarter-to-quarter due to the nature of the investment grade portfolio. The commercial real estate portfolio, including owner-occupied and income producing properties is performing satisfactorily overall. The charge-off ratio in the quarter declined to single digit basis points, where it was during the first half of the year. While early-stage delinquency improved slightly. As a reminder, the majority of charge-offs last quarter related to one loan secured by an owner-occupied property to a manufacturer supplying the auto industry. Non-performing commercial real estate…

Thanks, Tom. We’re ready to take some questions now and in order to accommodate as many as possible, please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. With that, operator, we’re ready to take our first question.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Scott Valentin - FBR.

With regard to TARP payment, you mentioned you have sufficient cash and capital to repay TARP. Can you give us some guidance or an indication on the timing of that and maybe also what other alternatives would there be to repaying TARP would you consider keeping TARP if there’s an assisted transaction or something like that?

The facts are that we are balancing regulatory matters and shareholder matters as best we can and intend to continue to do that. The world changes radically and so we’re trying to be certain that we are thinking about it in a complete way while being very sensitive to what the shareholder risk might or might not be. At the same time, financially observed in others who have repaid it financially given the coupon, whatnot it is the desirable thing to do, but we’re not certain when we’ll do it. We need to have the stars and moon aligns and then we’ll proceed from there.

Your next question comes from Brian Foran - Goldman Sachs.

I appreciate all of the detail about credit quality, but I guess if I think about what you had said on the 3Q call and then at the Boston conference about charge-offs likely being stable for the next couple of quarters versus this quarter’s decline. Was there any one thing, lower severities or a particular geography just being better or workouts being more successful, is this one thing or theme that drove the charge-offs this quarter?

I wish it was that easy. It was actually across all of the portfolios in our expectation and realization of the charge-offs. It came in at the lower end of the forecast, that was in our large commercial portfolios and then with the fall in delinquencies in previous quarters, and tier rates in the consumer side of the portfolio, we picked up momentum. I think that was pretty good against all of the portfolios, which were a little surprising, I think that everything got better all at the same time. That doesn’t mean that going forward, we don’t have some fairly large charge-offs to take specifically as we work through our Florida residential real estate portfolio.

If I could ask one follow-up on the mortgage repurchase trends. Again, thank you for the slide. It’s actually more data than I think anyone has put out so far. I guess, the question would be, when you look at the ending balance at $200 million, what is the right denominator to compare that to? Do you think about that relative to your current loss experience, relative to the pending requests, relative to the total loans sold in the 2007 vintage? I mean, what should we compare that to?

This is Mark Chancy, let me start, maybe Bill Rogers will add some. I think you’re going down the right path, the kind of analysis we’re doing is on a vintage-by-vintage basis. In terms of the reserve, we’re looking at the delinquent loans and then running a roll rate model to try to identify, what we think will roll into not only delinquency, but ultimate loss position, what the level of repurchase requests might be by vintage, the level of success rate if you will, in terms of our repurchases and then the loss severity on those individual loans by vintage. We have provided the data that shows a pretty significant difference between the underlying credit, and underwriting statistics associated with each of those years of vintage, the repurchase request now coming increasingly from newer vintages with better underwriting guidelines. So as you extrapolate that forward, we are making an estimate with much better data and a more granular analysis around what the current losses are within that portfolio to determine that reserve and we’ve given you a little bit of information around our expectation for charge-offs, which is that they will remain at this kind of elevated level for the next couple of quarters, although we’re not expecting a significant increase in the reserve at this point, given the information that we have and the trend line that we’re on.

Your next question comes from Ken Usdin - Bank of America Securities.

I just wanted to ask in terms of reserve build, expectations, looking ahead. The reserve build was a little bigger than it had been in the third quarter, but fairly consistent with what you’ve been doing. Given your comments about charge-offs needing to step up a little bit, and then maybe from this quarter’s level to the next few quarters, and your presumption that things could start to improve in the second half. Where are you in your view of where you stand on your reserve and incremental additions from here?

This is Mark Chancy and then Tom Freeman may add. The reserve build actually for the allowance itself was lower than in prior quarters. If you go back to the third quarter, I think the number was about $128 million. The reserve build in the fourth quarter was $96 million. We did include in the provision expense the incremental reserve build associated with the unfunded commitments reserve and when you aggregate that increase of $57 million with the ALLL increase of $96 million, you get to a number of $153 million, and that may be what you’re comparing to last quarter’s $128 million. So I think the correct comparison is $128 million to $96 million, so it’s actually on a downward trend. We did increase the unfunded commitments reserve, and that was related, in part, to a large corporate credit that did not charge off during the course of the fourth quarter, but we added to the reserves both on balance sheet as well as off balance sheet.

My second question is just, maybe Jim, if you could touch on Florida, just generally speaking. Underlying trends you’re seeing there economically and from a real estate and business activity perspective?

It’s actually it remains spotty depending on where you are in Florida. The reality is that the home sales are doing better than they have been, the continuation of the third quarter trend and the fourth quarter, I think was there. The tourist dollars are less than anyone would like, but in terms of volume of visitors to the parks and whatnot, the volumes are up, the dollars are down, as is true in that industry across the country and maybe the world for that matter. Home values, I think we maybe at some inflection point here, because depending on which home valuation service it is you pay attention to you get different answers about the decline rates, 2010 versus 2009 and I think at this point it’s now devolving into, it depends on what the property is, it is under $0.5 million home, is it near the beach, is it in the middle of what used to be an Orange Grove in the center of the state, and those kinds of specific and detailed things. So from a general matter, it’s better, it’s not great yet, but it’s better.

Your next question comes from Nancy Bush - NAB Research.

Some regulatory questions, Jim, I realize this is probably going to be tough to answer, and I kind of think I know the answer in advance, but I need to ask the question anyway. Given the credit outlook that you’ve put forth here, it looks like there are still loss quarters to come at least for the next several quarters. Have you gotten any indications from the regulators about whether you will be able to payback TARP while you are still in a loss position?

All we are talking about publicly, as I’m sure you do know, which is why you asked the question the way you did, Nancy, is that the guidance that came out in June about one who wants to pay TARP back, there are obviously shareholder dilution issues in some aspects of that. The guideline is just that, and I think if you analyze those who repaid it recently, what you see is a high variation and how it actually worked and what it meant, and what the math was. So what we are trying to do, as I said earlier is to balance regulatory issues, future capital ratios, obviously and the shareholder aspect of this as best we can. You can be sure that there are constant viewers of the way the world is working and at this point, I think we’re sort of thinking about it in the right way. We’ll just to have seen how it plays out.

Secondly, given yesterday’s new rules, whatever they maybe, do you see anything that would impact your company in there, particularly with regard to the coming period of consolidation in the industry?

Obviously, I’m not sure I understand it exactly, I don’t think anyone does. So if we projected what it might mean ultimately, which is a long time from now, I think in terms of actually knowing anything about it. You would have to believe that those who are more heavily weighted to proprietary trading and those sorts of things than we are would be more affected by it. We have a very nice client focused business as you know Nancy, as that’s what we have been trying to do for a period of time, and my guess is it wouldn’t have much impact on that. SO we do a very little, certainly on a relative basis deep proprietary trading.

Your next question comes from Jason Goldberg - Barclays.

We’ve seen, I guess improvement in early stage delinquencies the last several quarters, I guess NPAs and restructures have continued to increase. Can you talk about the dynamics of those two, what is I guess is their lag effect? How long that lag typically is or maybe that’s not the best way to look at it?

Maybe I could offer an alternative sort of view of this. As we’ve been talking about the TDRs and the compositions of TDRs over the past couple of quarters, while the delinquencies are declining, our restructuring efforts are getting, we’ve gone through the inventory of severely delinquent loans to a large extent. Our methodology and analytics have gotten increasingly proactive to try to identify people early in their issues. So that don’t get in so much financial trouble that we can’t get them through their issues. As you look at the composition of the workout streams, we’re actually reaching deeper and deeper in to our current queues for folks that need some help in identifying that they’ve got problems or restructuring requirements. That’s kind of what we’re trying to indicate in those slides that we’ve begun to put in there.

Secondly, sorry if I missed this, in terms of the tax rate for the quarter, I guess adjusting for some of the noise. It still looked like it was relatively low. I guess anything else in there and just maybe give some guidance to go forward?

As far as guidance going forward, obviously in this environment, we have been in a loss position, and you have certain permanent tax differences. You have items that are in our income stream that are municipal interest, for example. You have tax planning strategies, both at the state and Federal level that have been implemented and get reserved periodically. We have several of those planning sessions come to fruition during the course of 2009 as the years were reserved with the taxing authorities, all of those various variables affect the tax rate in a given period. So at this point, we’re not providing any specific guidance as we move in to 2010. There wasn’t any large transaction resolved in the fourth quarter that drove a specific tax rate. There were some smaller favorable adjustments that occurred during the course of the fourth quarter, but nothing significant.

Your next question comes from Craig Siegenthaler - Credit Suisse.

Just on the trust and investment management and the asset management business. Just wondering were there any performance fees or prop gains in the fourth quarter number? You picked up a lot, and I’m wondering is there anything offsetting that comp?

This is Bill Rogers. There were some perform related fees in the fourth quarter that accounted for that.

Can you quantify that at all? Was that mostly the delta?

No, it was really about probably, a little less than half of the total increase.

Was any of that offsetting comp, because normally about half of that will close to the comp?

Yes, and there’s a corresponding, if you go down a lot bit, corresponding increase in comp related to that performance base.

This is Mark Chancy, I mentioned the quarter-over-quarter expense in increase in personnel with items like that that drove the increase.

Then just a quick question, do you disclose your six months redefault rate? I love the disclosure you have on slide 20, but I’m wondering what that redefault rate was on the TDRs?

Don’t disclose it, but of the reasons for that was the lack of industry standardization around the method of calculation makes it very difficult to put a number out that could be compared correctly on a company-over-company basis, and that’s one of the reasons why we don’t make that public.

We’re closing in on the top of the hour. So we’ll take one more question.

Your final question comes from Kevin Fitzsimmons - Sandler O’Neill. Kevin Fitzsimmons - Sandler O’Neill: Just wondering if you should we be looking at the trading account profits that declined nicely link quarter and I guess largely because of lower market valuation losses. Should we expect that to continue or given the environment are we kind of probably going to stay at a certain level. Just wondering if you could just address quickly the deferred tax asset issue, which you mention in the release that you went from a DTL position to a small DTA position? Does that put you guys anymore at risk of having to write that down at some point in the future? Thanks.

Kevin, this is Steve. Kind of the core trading as you know has been a little volatile. It’s been on a down trend. That was basically driven by core client activity such as equity and fixed income derivatives volume in our client business. In terms of where that’s going to go in the future, clearly interest rate volatility and stock market volatility tends to increase transaction volume. So if you have a view of that, you would tend to think that trading is going to be flat from where it is to up, but probably not down again. I’m going to let Mark address specifically the DTA question.

This is Mark Chancy. The DTA number for Federal was $25 million, and I think was the net. So it was a very modest change if you will, and increased in the DTA. The increase was driven, actually by a change in our OCI that was correlated. We have some received fixed swaps that have been deeply in the money, and with marginal change and increase in rates, the AOCI was reduced and that affected the calculation. There is no valuation reserve that is warranted in connection with our Federal, and we have a modest valuation reserve that has already been established in connection with our state DTAs. So the bottom line answer to your question is, no. We do not anticipate at this point, the need for a valuation reserve on our Federal and there’s a little bit of noise in terms of the relevant change because of things like variations in OCI.

Thank you, everybody; we appreciate you all joining us this morning.

That concludes today’s conference. You may disconnect at this time.