Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Webster Financial Corporation’s fourth quarter 2008 earnings results conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session, and instructions will follow at that time. (Operator instructions) As a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, this conference is being recorded. Also this presentation includes forward-looking statements within the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to Webster’s financial condition results of operations in business and financial performance. Webster has based these forward-looking statements on current expectations and projections about future events. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions as described in Webster Financial’s public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which could cause future results to differ materially from historical performance or future expectations. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference, Mr. James C. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Webster’s fourth quarter 2008 investor call and webcast. Joining me today are Jerry Plush, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Risk Officer; John Ciulla, our Chief Credit Risk Officer; and, Terry Mangan, Investor Relations. We’ve got a lot of ground to cover, say 35 minutes or so let me get right to it. Normally I’d lead with more strategic comments, but I think the focus today should be primarily on asset quality and capital. I’m sure you’ll agree. So I’ll discuss the strategy in my closing remarks. We’ve taken strong steps to address credit quality and securities marks and other than temporary impairment. And this call enables us to explain our actions and to highlight our strong capital structure and our asset quality. I’ll take them in that order. Our regulatory capital is way beyond the requirement for well capitalized. And our tangible capital is higher than it was a year ago. In terms of regulatory ratios, bear in mind that Webster was in the 80th percentile or better at September 30 for Tier 1 leverage, Tier 1 risk based capital, and total risk based capital ratios, compared to the Federal Reserve’s peer group of Webster and 65 other bank holding companies with assets of $10 billion or more. At 12/31, the leverage ratio at 9.6% is about double the requirement for well capitalized. Tier 1 risk based at 12.7% is more than double the requirement, and total risk based at 15.2% is 50% higher than required. And all are significantly higher than our internal targets of 8%, 10%, and 12%, respectively. Two ratings agencies noted as much in the recent reviews. S&P just affirmed our ratings despite the negative outlook, noting that our non-performing asset levels our no worse than many of our regional…

Thank you, Jim. Good morning, everyone. I’ll cover several items. We’ll talk through a loan composition, growth and asset quality. We’ll then cover the investment portfolio. I’ll briefly comment on those other-than-temporary impairment charges that have been taken as well as greater detail in the goodwill impairment charge. We’ll talk through deposits and borrowings. And also conclude with some brief perspective on the first quarter. So let’s start first with loans and growth. Our total loans at year-end were $12.2 billion that represented a 2.5% decline from the prior year’s ending balance. Excluding a $468 million securitization of residential mortgage loans in the fourth quarter, our core loan growth would have been 1.3% for the year. Commercial loans consisting of C&I and CRE totaled $5.8 billion. It grew by 4% combined from a year ago. Our commercial loans now comprise 48% of the total portfolio, compared to 45% a year ago. The C&I portion of the commercial portfolio totaled $3.6 billion at December 31st. And that’s a decline of $108 million from September 30th, primarily in asset based lending. The entire C&I portfolio yielded about 5.22% in the quarter, compared to 5.24% in the third quarter. Our equipment finance outstandings totaled just over $1 billion at year-end. Again this is a very direct origination business, centralized underwriting, and the portfolio continues to be very granular as no single credit represents 1% of the portfolio. And the average deal size is less than $100,000. As in all of our commercial lines of business, we continue to underwrite diligently our customer’s current financial condition and prospects. We’re focused on higher down payments and shorter amortizations where appropriate. And we continue to proactively evaluate the industries in which we lend. Asset based lending outstandings were $753 million at December 31st, compared to $868…

Thanks, Jerry. I’ll conclude by emphasizing the shift in our business model to focus intensely on core franchise opportunities with absolute focus on providing basic financial services in market, direct to our customers. The only exceptions, being our direct to customer centrally-controlled equipment financing, asset based lending, and commercial real estate units, and our fast growing HSA bank. We will succeed as a regional commercial bank, easy to understand, easy to measure, and easy to compare. We understand the tradeoff we’ve made. We will not be counting on out of market businesses to make up for the slower growth market where our core franchise happens to be located. We’re banking on our ability to outperform those in our market by executing on our retail and commercial banking strategies. There’s no fallback position. We know that and we’re highly motivated by that. We’ll be focusing on five areas in 2009, credit administration has to top the list. With added resources, improved MIS, and reorganized the function over the past year, and we’ll continue our emphasis on this critically important area. Next is completing the centralization of all support functions. An initiative we undertook with One Webster months ago and have accelerated in the next phase announced today. Third, is launching our Boston presence as a bank wide initiative whereby we’ll deliver all of our capabilities to the region. Fourth, we’re instituting a deposit, or I should say, we have instituted a deposits first mentality across Webster, including changes in marketing programs and incentives to encourage Webster people to focus on gathering deposits ahead of all else. And finally, cross selling to existing customers using new database marketing systems and techniques to deepen customer relationships. I’ll give you a single example of the success of the deposits first and cross sales strategies. 80% of new mortgage customers are opening up ACH relationships with us, and 40% represent new to Webster checking accounts. I think it’s fair to say that hidden beneath the challenges of the day is the considerable progress we’ve made in advancing our business plans and making progress toward our vision to be New England’s bank. I hope that our comments today have helped to clarify our actions and highlight our strengths. You may concur with me that Webster’s valuation, currently at about 40% of tangible book value, is incomprehensibly low. Thank you for being with us on call. We’ll be pleased to respond to your comments and questions.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. (Operator instructions) Our first question is coming from Ken Zerbe with Morgan Stanley. Please state your question. Ken Zerbe – Morgan Stanley: Good morning.

Good morning. Ken Zerbe – Morgan Stanley: I understand you guys did do a great job in terms of cleaning up the balance sheet. Just looking forward, if you were to look at what you have now in terms of whether the remaining troughs or certain loan portfolios, where do you think that you could potentially see additional weakness from here?

Ken, it’s Jerry. I think that, taken from the comments that Jim made, the A and lower rated troughs, we feel that we isolated what’s left. The fair value there is, I’ll call it just offhand, in and around the thirty some odd million dollars left in value. So we take that, and I’ll reference the specific numbers in a sec when I grab the supplemental investment page, I would expect that there could be some defaults or deferrals of payments there, and that could create some of that collateral short folder drives, the OTTI impairments the way that we look at it, and we think that the way that a number of other external dealers look at it. So I think that the good news is in that statement, you’ve got relatively a limited amount of dollars there. As I think about the mortgage backed securities portfolio, clearly, we were actually seeing, subsequent to 12/31, some real up tick in the value of the fixed rate and agency mortgage backed securities. So I actually see some positives there. I think everyone notes from our – also though, from our investor presentations, we have about $135 million worth of CMBS in the investment portfolio. And I think in the investment schedules, it’s combined in total mortgaged backed securities. We’ve seen some real market weakness there, in those. However, at this stage, given the collateral levels, we haven’t seen any casual issues underlying any of those. But clearly, there is an expectation of the fault in a number of those deals that we caused that type of fair value issue to those. We would say, arguably, a lot of it’s liquidity, or lack of liquidity, but we also think that we’re realistic and expect that there will be CRE deterioration in 2009, and we’ll see some of that potentially come through in the way of those types of values. But I think a lot of that’s taken into account when you think of the values that were shown. Our real view was, and I think we tried to clearly articulate both from the call and then also in the schedules, is to really give people a framework of what capital’s at risk. Because the OTTI charges we’ve taken, so that specific write downs we’ve taken, coupled with what you can see that’s left and where the OCI levels are, I think you will recognize that that’s all straight deductions from tangible common equity or tangible equity, whichever ratio you want to think about. And as such, we really don’t have that much left at fair value that we think is at risk. So I think, if I’m responding to your question, specific around the investment portfolio. That’s sort of my overarching thoughts about that. And John, if you have any comments on the loans–

Sure. On the loans, Ken, I mean you know that, obviously, we’ve got the liquidated home equity portfolio. It’s down to about $284 million. In that portfolio, there is about a 40% sub-segment that really is driving the worst performance. It’s about 40% of the portfolio, or 38% of the portfolio. And it’s driving an excess of 60% of the losses. I think we took some aggressive steps with respect to provisioning in the quarter, which give us some good coverage, as Jerry mentioned, against that portfolio. But obviously, we are aggressively trying to work that portfolio down through loss mitigation and aggressive risk management. Jerry referenced in his comments the $58 million in permanent national wholesale loans where we put up a $10 million reserve. The good news there is those are occupied completed homes. And we believe we’re undertaking right now a file-by-file review, which we did on our in construction loans to make sure that we’ve got adequate provision there. But that portfolio is amortizing, and again, it’s relatively small, but we’re watching it carefully. Residential development, you note, that we took some significant charges in the fourth quarter. There’s $163 million [ph] left in that portfolio. There is clearly still risk in the portfolio if we continue to see deterioration in home prices, and lack of activity and sales activity in the market. The good news is that $48 million of that $162 million net balance that we’re reporting are non-accruals that have already been marked down aggressively or appropriately, but taken significant marks against the $48 million. And the balance then of residential development loans are much more granular than the ones that went non-accrual and we took losses against. So in that remaining balance, there’s only four relationships greater than $5 million in exposure. And all but one of those are performing relatively well. So I think we’ve got our arms around that portfolio. We do monthly absorption reviews, but obviously, as I mentioned, and you asked that question, I think we still see potential for risk in that portfolio. And then beyond that, it’s the same story as we gave in the third quarter where our C&I booked both in the middle market, and this is in professional banking, along with investment commercial real estate, while we’re seeing stress and some negative risk migration. The portfolios are performing very, very well. I think we’re benefited by our geography and the strength of underwriting. So we’re looking at what the – those asset classes, which tend to lag in the – in terms of performance in a long economic downturn making sure we’re staying ahead of it. But thus far, the statistics show that those portfolios are holding up quite well. Ken Zerbe – Morgan Stanley: Okay. Thank you very much.

Our next question is coming from Mark Fitzgibbon with Sandler O'Neill. Please state your question. Mark Fitzgibbon – Sandler O'Neill: Good morning. Guys, I was wondering if you could share with me what you're seeing in the home equity and commercial line utilization rates. What kind of trends you've been seeing this quarter?

Utilization rates–

Hey, Mark. It's Jerry, and John will also comment. In my comment, our general view was we – and I think probably the most important thing for everyone to know is, we monitor all open line on a daily basis. So each of the business units report to both John and myself on a daily basis with their activity. And it's monitored, not only then by from a credit and overall risk perspective, it's also monitored by each and everyone with the line of business directors. So there's a real focus on understanding the trend in that portfolio. And I would have to say that, specifically to consumer, we did see a little bit of an up tick, but when you think, it's 48% versus the 46%, I believe fourth quarter versus third. But what I think it really does point out is, as your underwriting new credits, given that the line assignments that we're handing out may not be at the same levels that you would've seen in prior periods. So when you look at current period vintage, you're just not going to see us as well as most lenders are signing out the higher levels that you would've seen on the line. So it's a little bit misleading, particularly given that we've seen such a shift in consumer preference and clearly, that's rate driven, and also because of the open ended nature of them to build towards lines. So I think as it relates to home equity, I think we would say that constant daily monitoring both within the line and also from the credit risk management standpoint, really not seen a real surge in any one category, specific vantages. And I think that overall, we're comfortable with – that we saw some slight up tick overall in utilization. John, you want to comment on commercial?

Yes. Mark, I would agree. I think all the data we have shows that there's really not a behavioral switch in commercial. It's relatively flat period over period if you X out the seasonality in some of the businesses. I think we mentioned on the call last time at the end of the third quarter and beginning at the fourth quarter, we did have a handful of commercial borrowers. Some specific to our asset-based business where there was a, sort of, a liquidity preservation draw, I'd like to say, but I think once there were government actions were announced, those liquidity draws were quickly repaid And we have not seen cash hoarding or any other type of bars where behavior that 's impacting our utilization rights in the commercial asset class, as well. Mark Fitzgibbon – Sandler O’Neill: Okay. And then, with respect to the provision, know it's a giant guess at this point. Could you give us a sense for where we should be thinking about provisioning levels for the first quarter?

Yes, Mark. And I think just generally speaking, one of the things that we have consistently shown over a very demonstrated period in time is that we'll obviously record provision to the extent of anything that we charge off, so at this point in time, I would say going in a certainly at this point and time within the cycle. And at this point and time of the way, just to give you a view of our thinking, we'll clearly, into the extent that there was $15 million or $20 million worth of charge offs in the quarter, reflect that we would want to replace those. I think the issue for provisioning, comes down to a couple of things, one, clearly, we did not see significant loan growth. So one of the issues, and even though we're trying to continue to be proactive in lending to the markets, we're seeing an equal amount of contraction going on there. So I'm not sure that we'll see as much of a provisioning based on growth need in 2009 because my expectation would be that we'll see a fair bit of churn, and it will still see some very, very well numbers, single digit numbers in terms of overall growth. Even though again, I want to emphasize – and I think this echoes Jim's comments, we're trying to proactively be there in the small business and the commercial and in the consumer markets for the customers in the – not only in the local footprint but serving all of our lines of business. And again, very much focused on those little core deposits. But specifically, as it relates to the way we're thinking about provisioning, going forward, it's really the risk assessment given the environmental factors that we're assigning to each category. So…

Our next question comes from Collyn Gilbert with Stifel Nicolaus. Please state your question. Collyn Gilbert – Stifel Nicolaus: Thanks. Good morning, guys. This is kind of a follow up, I think, to what Mark was asking on the provision line, and I guess, Jim, I'll take it back to your initial comment in terms of perhaps being given a little bit more credit for the $100 million provision in the fourth quarter. And I think where credit could be given as if – if you guys can give us visibility that, that was a one time boost in the provision, or if there is clarity to be given that we wouldn't expect that time to continue going forward, that we can – and maybe that's what you’re sort of saying here, Jerry. But I think that's the moving target here. And if we try to sort of assess what you've guided to in the past, it's been considerably lower than where we are today. And I think that's – I know that's certainly my challenge. So if–

Yes. Collyn Gilbert – Stifel Nicolaus: You could tie those together a little bit.

Collyn, you’re spot on. And we'll readily acknowledge that as we look through what we felt would need to be the core we've also been trying to break out for, and again today, even with the much larger provisioning that we did, the pieces. So if you asserted to think again about what we did today, $30 million of that, in the context of what I was saying is really a replacement of the charge off that we took. We looked at its updated forecasts that we've done both in internal model and an external model, looking from something as simple as ROE rate analysis to just say we believe there's more lost content, given the deteriorating economic conditions that'll happen to those home equity lines. So hence, while there's a boost over there. So two big components that we've put up this quarter that I would think were specific actions related to evidence we found during the course of the quarter. One of which, we were pretty clear in indicating to folks in the last call that everybody knew that either projects that were on the interest reserve or had already shown at default. We clearly moved everything to non-accrual, ordered the appraisals and took the charges. So I would say just top level. The 30 and the 25, respectively were specific to actions in the quarter. Also the 10 million that we put up around that specific segment of the resi portfolio would be, again, an item that we said. We're looking at a specific packet of loans that are causing a lot of delinquency. We think that – I think I outlined today was half the charge-off to experience to the resi portfolio. So just add up those components. I think you get back to where that core provision number would be. Collyn Gilbert – Stifel Nicolaus: Okay. So then, to decipher through that we could assume that the provision would be lower in the first quarter.

We sure would hope so. I think the way that Jerry broke it out in his remarks helped to clarify. You looked at, there was 35. That was similar to what was taken in Q3. And then, there was 30 with a specific purpose against commercial real estate. And there was 10 against some permanent loans. Again that was specific. There was 25 because we decided we need a bigger number in the liquidating home equity portfolio. If you do the math, I think you could deduce for yourself what we think the run rate is. Collyn Gilbert – Stifel Nicolaus: Okay. Okay, that's helpful. And then, just a question on the NSF charges. You had said that they were a lot lower this quarter. Any thought on why that might be? I mean, what kind of trends are you seeing in your checking account behavior, your consumer behavior, retail behavior.

Well, one thing that we're saying is that people are being more careful. I think it's the sign of the times. That if you can avoid overdraft days, you want to, people are paying more attention to their checking accounts. They're paying more attention to their cash needs. As a result that we think they're probably managing better which is a good thing. We also think that some of the relationship accounts that have introduced are attracting a lot of our customers which is also a good thing. And we hope that it will end up meaning higher balances and ultimately more valuable relationships over the long term. Collyn Gilbert – Stifel Nicolaus: Okay, great. And then, just one final question. What was the exact date that you guys received the TARP money?

November 21. Collyn Gilbert – Stifel Nicolaus: December 21?

November. Collyn Gilbert – Stifel Nicolaus: November 21. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next question is coming from Matthew Kelley with Sterne, Agee & Leach. Please state your question. Matthew Kelley – Sterne, Agee & Leach: Yes. Hi, guys. I was wondering if you could just walk us through the mechanics of shifting from preferred to tangible common, how that process would work. You've mentioned that for every $100,00 million that shifts, you get 55 basis points on TCE. What would that process look like?

The res/dev is right here, way down deep into the details that right now, we've put it out there as we could possibly do, as a means of raising comment of we chose to. I think there are various ways to approach it there. There are certain kinds of exchanges that you could undertake, but I wouldn't want to get steeped in the detail at this point. I'd like to leave it out there as a possibility. It's just the use of capital that is tangible today that can be pulled down the curve if we chose to do it.

Hey, Matt. It's Jerry. I guess my reaction would be I think just in terms of the context of Jim's comment. He was trying to give everyone. I think he did a very good job of getting a sense of – there's a lot of levers for an organization to pull, to boost TCE. Certainly, there could be the potential of asset shrink. There could just be natural asset shrink, just form the standpoint of it as we grow. We may still well cash flow out of the securities portfolios to not be reinvested. There's clearly the expense cuts that you think the value that we have just done in this second phase of One Webster. That we really haven't given anyone a lot of color about that 200 position elimination should generate a fairly significant Q2, Q3, Q4 savings at the bottom line. We're going to come forward. Literally, we just wrapped it up as we were going through this process of getting the books closed. As we give a little more color with that, they are too, which should be some favorable trend in the expense run rate. I think as it relates to the equitization or the potential of doing something around that, really can't comment specifically but just wanted to make sure that people know. Suddenly, that's something that a lot of investment bankers have called and had conversations with us about. There are levers for us to pull, and then obviously, we did One specifically as it relates to the dividend reduction because I think the prudent thing for us at this point in time, and that the board decided yesterday was that it made sense for us to preserve capital even though, we think our overall capital's trend's so neat. We just felt that we need to be very respectful of the tangible common and the tangible equity levels that we have in the organization. So hopefully, that's helpful to give you color on that. Matthew Kelley – Sterne, Agee & Leach: Yes. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm the holder of that $225 million worth of the preferred you guys did in June, had a conversion price of $27.71. Would you guys solicit the holders of those securities for some type of an exchange? Or are you talking about the potential of using any freed up liquidity to actually go out and tender for those bonds that is treated as a big discount?

Hey, Matt. We just can't comment at this point. I think what we wanted to do today was, again, give you the context, and given any further details of that would clearly indicate whether we were or weren't going to elect to do that. We just wanted to show it as an example. Matthew Kelley – Sterne, Agee & Leach: Okay. Other question was on the – can you just clarify on the commercial mortgage backed securities holdings. What's the amortized cost and fair value and notion value, and notional value, actually, as well?

Hey, Matt. Yes. I think our current value is about $135 million. I think the current fair value on those is $65 million. And why don't we do this, we'll give you a little bit more color on that. I just don't have it right on my fingertips right now. But I'll make sure that Jerry and I come back to you directly on that. Matthew Kelley – Sterne, Agee & Leach: Okay. Thank you.

Our next question is coming from John Pancari with JP Morgan. Please state your question. John Pancari – J.P. Morgan: Good morning.

Good morning, John. John Pancari – J.P. Morgan: Just on that CMBS portfolio again, understandably, there's clearly, and I know you indicated this is not a liquidity issue, not necessarily cash flow issues. Well, with the mounting liquidity issues here, I just wanted to get to an understanding about why we haven't seen any impairment yet on that portfolio, just given the some of the liquidity issues you're seeing out there on some of CMBS products?

Yes. John, specifically on that portfolio, there's one bond that will keep a close track on that's got the greatest level of market challenge. And again, when you think of that portfolio, it's all around levels of over capitalization or over securitization. They are all AAA rated. They're all – and again, we'll give some granularity to this in some of the follow up calls. We've got the specific details out. But I think that, our cinch is, they're all cash flowing. We're not seeing any deterioration at this point in the underlined collateral. And at this point, it's more of reflection of anticipated issues in these securities as opposed to a specific credit issue that would really drive you to pay that's impairment. I would also say that if we were to just use a measure of – at what point would you look to say that there is impairment? I think you got to get behind, and we are looking at the underlined collateral, specifically to the identified – he level you should be. I think there's probably an argument just to whether it should be based on the trade value in the market or whether there's actually still solid collateral to cash flow. The vast majority of the credit. So I do think there's much more of a credit component that has to come into effect when you look at these bonds as opposed to just the illiquidity in the market and the decline of prices. Most of the subordinations – most of the collateral levels, the over collateralization levels, you know, when these things are to 20% to 30% range. I believe there's only one that's less than that. And again, I think you have to look at the specific deals to really make sure that…

Yes. That's a broad question. I'll just say that, I mean, we have taken steps already such as reducing the dividend to a $0.01. That's 33 basis points in a year. It's either nine basis points a quarter beginning right away. You get some benefit from the next phase of One Webster, for example. And I want to stress again, and we said this repeatedly through the call is that we don't feel any pressure to raise capital. We have very strong capital levels. Particularly, focusing on that tangible capital at 770, which continues to compare favorably with our peer group, so the perspective from which we are operating. So it's to the extent that there are opportunities out there, we would look at them more opportunistically than any other way. As far as partnerships, I'll make the same comment that I always do, which is that we're interested in making combinations with the like-minded partners that share our vision to be in New England's Bank, I'd have to say their evaluation's where they are. It's hard to imagine that much would happen here. John Pancari – J.P. Morgan: Okay, thank you.

Our next question is coming from Damon Del Monte with KBW. Please state your question. Damon Del Monte – KBW: I was wondering if you could quantify what we can expect for expenses with the Boston initiative. I don't recall if you had done that last quarter.

Yes, Damon. It's Jerry. And just in terms of some of the core expenses, we're looking at probably in the neighborhood of $1.5 million or so in the current period. Maybe potentially up to $2 million. It depends on the ramp up and in the timing, obviously. I would just say that we've taken that into account. And clearly, as you can see, with some of the expansion plans we have, rest assured that there are other issues or other expenses that we are taking out. And that there's decisions we just haven't – that we're in the process of evaluating or I'll call it alternatives to look throughout the network as there are other places where we could save money to offset those expenses. So rest assured, I wouldn't put it as an automatic to add in, that there's other things that we're doing that would be taken out to offset. Damon Del Monte – KBW: Okay, thank you. And then also, Jim, in your opening remarks, you made some comments about S&P's view or the rating agency’s view on capital levels.

Yes. Damon Del Monte – KBW: Specific to comments you made, could you repeat for us, please.

Are you saying what I was talking about our estimate of what the just and tangible common equity ratios are? Damon Del Monte – KBW: Yes.

Yes. We were saying that our estimate, the best that we can calculate it, so you know I need copy out of with that. Is that the adjust of a tangible common equity ratio for Moody's would be a little over 6%? Say 6% or 7% or so. Damon Del Monte – KBW: Okay. And what does that adjustment take you to a comp? How is that different from the tangible common of 4 and a total tangible equity of seven?

Well, it takes us some of what's in the tangible and gives credit for it to the – as common capital. And that's how you end up in the middle. And they have a formula. They actually have several formulas that they use to arrive at that. S&P does something similar that they call adjusted tangible equity. It's pretty complex calculation. I think it'd be better to try to handle that offline with Bruce Wandelmaier, our Treasurer. I'd be happy to have him in touch with you. Damon Del Monte – KBW: Okay.

But I also think it’s important and worth noting because they do, do the math, and they indicate what the levels are, occasionally, when they put out their own report. So with S&P it’s $6.65, and Moody’s at $6.07. We thought it was important for people to understand that that’s how they look at it. Damon Del Monte – KBW: Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next question is coming from the line of Gerard Cassidy with RBC Capital Markets. Please state your question. Gerard Cassidy – RBC Capital Markets: Thank you.

Hi, Gerard. Gerard Cassidy – RBC Capital Markets: Good morning. Maybe you guys touched on this and I just didn’t hear it. In terms of the outlook for non-performing assets, considering this was a very difficult recession. And then let’s assume, for the moment, that it extends into the latter part of this year. Where do you guys see the non-performing assets going? Considering in the recession of ’90 of ’91, if I recall, I think they broke 5% of total loans. Could we see that kind of number this time around.

Yes. I mean I’d say it’s difficult. Obviously, we lost forecast a lot looking at ’09 under various scenarios. And the two metrics that go into that are what we see falling in a non-accrual, and then obviously, how quickly we can resolve what’s coming on. And so a combination of those, obviously, our goal is to minimize that growth through both prospective asset quality management and expedited asset remediation. As Jerry mentioned earlier in the provision, I think it’s difficult, with all the scenarios we have, to think about where we see non-accrual loans going over the course of the next 12-month period. I mean there’s no question about the fact that our base case models, we continue to see negative risk rating – negative risk rating migration increases in non-accruals modestly over the next four quarters. But again, as we’ve talked about several times in the last couple of quarters, we’re sort of through the first wave of asset issues with respect to residential related asset classes. And now we’re sort of in this lull were we have not yet seen a significant impact on the C&I, small business, and real estate. But obviously, our expectations are that if we continue to see negative economic trends continue for the next 12 months, that we will ultimately see some stress in those portfolios. So I would say we expect, overall, net rates of non-accruals to rise, but through aggressive asset resolution, and through hopefully, good prospective asset identification, we’ll be able to moderate those increases. Gerard Cassidy – RBC Capital Markets: On the asset resolution, can you guys give us a sense of how big – how big that department was, let’s say, a year ago versus today? Do you expect to add more people to the department? And what are the expenses associated with that resolution.

Sure. And I’m sure you’ll hear this story in many of our other peers. We’re clearly up – we’re up four, five FTEs in the realm of our special assets group, which is more broadly defined now. And we’re bifurcating some of the responsibilities from pure workout to establishing some early stage asset remediation units whose sole focus is to take those assets that are not yet in hardcore workout, if you will, or litigation, and try and restructure loss mitigate work – remediate work people out of the banks. So I would say that it would definitely have more focused resources in that area. The good news, in a difficult expense environment, is that we’re shifting resources rather than having to go out and add tons of incremental resources.

And still in finance, in shifting the resources, what we’re saying is that for at least a year now, Gerard, we have taken the external focus and made it an internal focus. So even within the business lines, the focus is on understanding what our customer situation is and trying to determine as early as possible that there are issues there. In the meantime, though, through this intense centralization process, there are significantly greater resources involved in credit administration, loss mitigation, and credit management than were before. And I don’t know whether you’d have a number for him, but it’s–

And I’d just add to that, Jim, I think that the ramp up that we’ve had even in the depth and graph of the loan review staff. So Gerard, we’re being very proactive on the active portfolio management independent loan review front. But I think, to both the points that have been raised, from a cost standpoint, we’re literally offsetting the ramp up of what we’re doing or the shifts that we’ve done in personnel from the revenue side of the house to the risk management side of the house. So you’re not going to see, from a standpoint externally, significant up tick in the expenses related to this because we’ve taken steps internally to offset it. So John, if you have anything to–

I also want to say that I did state that at number one in terms of the current focus as well. Gerard Cassidy – RBC Capital Markets: One final question, maybe Jim, you could answer this. With the legislation going through Congress on cram downs, it appears very likely now that it’s going to probably be passed. What are your folks’ view on this? And are you trying to do anything through your (inaudible) and congressmen in Congress to prevent it from happening? And number two, if it does pass, what type of impact are you guys planning that it may have on your consumer loan portfolio?

Yes. Let me say, we are working on this. And we support the ABA’s position, which is in opposition to the cram down. We think it ultimately will raise the cost of home ownership to millions of Americans. And it’s a bad bill. And as you know, the industry has tried, and successfully so to oppose this for a long time now. It’s less likely that we’d be successful this time around, but we are definitely going to make the effort. I think that the impact will be that it could negatively affect consumer behavior. It could result in more non-accruals, and we think also larger losses. And in some cases, unnecessary losses as a result of the cram down. But I would say, from our perspective, that we are proactively trying to identify, ahead of the curve, the distressed borrowers that we have in our consumer and mortgage portfolios and reach out to them, to work with them, to try to set up plans for them that will enable them to make their payments, if not now, then down the line. And keep them in their homes. We think that is the best remediation policy that there is.

This does conclude the Q&A session. I’d like to turn the floor back over to management for any closing comments.

Thank you again all of you for being with us today. We look forward to talking with you soon.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. And we thank you for your participation.