Good morning and welcome to Webster Financial Corporation’s Second Quarter 2014 Results conference call. 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, and business and financial performance. Webster has based these forward-looking statements on current expectations and projections about future events. Actual results might differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that could cause actual results to materially differ from those in the forward-looking statements is contained in Webster Financial’s public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Form 8-K containing our earnings release for the second quarter of 2014. I will now introduce your host, Mr. Jim Smith, Chairman and CEO of Webster. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Manny. Good morning everyone. Welcome to Webster’s second quarter earnings call and webcast. I’m joined by CFO, Glenn MacInnes for about 20 minutes of prepared remarks focused on business and financial performance within the quarter, after which President Joe Savage, Glenn and I will take questions. Results for the second quarter reflect continuing solid performance, particularly given a tougher interest rate environment than we envisioned heading into the quarter. By continuing to live up to our customers’ expectations in a market-leading way, we’re generating continuing loan growth, strong growth in transaction account balances, and deepening customer relationships. Results reflect rigorous expense discipline and strengthening credit quality reflective of an improving economy and our effective risk management. We’re making progress along the path to high performance and toward achievement of economic profits. Beginning on Slide 2, net income increased 3% year-over-year to $48 million. After preferred dividends, net income available to common shareholders was $0.50 a share compared to $0.48 a year ago. Return on average assets was 90 basis points, on average common equity was 8.54, and on average tangible common was 11.52. All my further comments will be based on core operating earnings. Looking at Slides 3 and 4, results were driven by loan growth in all categories, both linked quarter and year-over-year, especially in commercial banking. Continuing improvement in asset quality and relentless expense management helped produce the 13th consecutive quarter of year-over-year positive operating leverage. Strong growth in commercial loans boosted loan interest income even as lower rates and competitive pricing pressures drove yields lower on loan originations across the board. Lower rates also reduced yields and net interest income in the flat securities portfolio as premium amortizations increased and reinvestment yields declined. As a result, the net interest margin declined a more than anticipated…

Thanks Jim. I’ll begin on Slide 10, which summarizes our core earnings drivers. Our average interest-earning assets grew $278 million compared to Q1, attributable entirely to growth in our loan portfolio. Net interest margin of 319 basis points decreased from 326 basis points in the prior quarter. Combined, this resulted in net interest income of $155.1 million, flat to prior quarter but over 5% from prior year. Core non-interest income increased by $2.1 million or 5% on a linked quarter basis. The increase was driven primarily by a rebound in consumer activity resulting in higher deposit service fees. Core expenses were $1.7 million below Q1 primarily as a result of seasonal reductions in compensation and occupancy expense and a benefit from professional services. Taken together, our core pre-tax pre-provision earnings of $80.3 million were up about 5% from prior year and just below our record level of $80.5 million. Pre-tax GAAP reported income totaled $70.9 million for the quarter and reported net income of $47.8 million includes an effective tax rate of 32.5% in the quarter. You’ll recall in Q1 we recognized a $2 million non-recurring tax benefit. Slides 11 and 12 highlight the components of net interest margin. On Slide 11, you see net interest margin for Q2 versus Q1, and as you see, we’ve posted quarterly growth in average interest earning assets of $278 million, virtually all of which was in our loan portfolio. The yield on securities decreased by 14 basis points while the yield on loans decreased by 5 basis points. As a result, our yield on average interest earning assets declined 8 basis points from the first quarter. Interest income on securities dropped by $2.3 million versus prior quarter. $1.3 million of the decline was due to an increase in securities premium amortization associated with…

Thanks Glenn. Our results demonstrate our sustained success in growing our businesses and generating positive operating leverage in pursuit of our economic profits. We’re making good progress in our quest to be a high performing regional bank. We’re now happy to take your comments and questions.

[Operator instructions] Our first question is from Dave Rochester of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Dave Rochester – Deutsche Bank: Hey, good morning guys.

Morning, Dave. Dave Rochester – Deutsche Bank: Jim, you were saying the personal banking pipeline was – did I catch this right? – 34% quarter-over-quarter?

I was talking about the mortgage banking pipeline at $325 million was up about 40%. Dave Rochester – Deutsche Bank: Okay, and then the commercial pipeline, that’s up 8%?

That’s correct. Dave Rochester – Deutsche Bank: So would you say you guys are more positive, perhaps, on loan growth in 3Q versus 2Q?

Certainly on the personal bank side, yes. I would say the commercial bank has continually demonstrated that momentum.

Yes. Hey Dave, this is Joe Savage. It’s pretty interesting if you take a look at the originations that we did in the first half of the year, it was really stunning because we had that strong first quarter and we actually, as you recall, drained that pipeline. We’ve been racing to rebuild it, and I would say that—and we’ve had great close activity. We’ve done some meetings with our folks. We feel reasonably good that we’re going to have a solid third quarter. How that pipeline ends up – you know, it may be a situation where our close activity is moving at a rate almost greater than we can replace it, but we feel pretty good. Long answer to your short question, but we’re not in any way intimidated by that number. We think that number might actually climb a little bit as we head into Q4. Dave Rochester – Deutsche Bank: Great, I appreciate that extra color there. Switching to expenses and the guidance, it sounded like you’re still thinking that you can come below that 60% efficiency level. I was just wondering in terms of the actual dollar amount trend in 3Q versus 2Q, do you expect to see that flat to down, or should that actually grow a little bit as we go into the back half of the year?

Dave, it’s Glenn. I think that you might see a little growth – modest, I would call it – as we continue to invest in the business, but we have, as we indicated, every intent to be 60 or below. Dave Rochester – Deutsche Bank: Perfect. Just one last one on the loan growth side – can you talk about what drove the stronger growth in CRE this quarter, as in where you guys are seeing the opportunities and if you expect to see—it sounds like you expect to see that momentum continue in 3Q.

Yeah, sure – again, this is Joe. It was a great quarter. We put on 13 loans and I think what this group wants to hear, we really stayed true to our debt service coverage ratio and LTV is sitting at about 160 and 57% LTV, so we’re putting on good quality stuff. Probably the one thing I’d want to say for everybody to hear is that in our CRE book, we’ve got a seasoned group of folk. It’s been fairly broad-based where that activity has been occurring, but interestingly we were a tad worried about general overall pricing and structural deterioration, and when talking to our Bill Wrang, who heads our CRE book, he basically said he’s putting out more term sheets but he’s not winning them because he’s not getting the hit rate he wants, but fortunately we’re able to still get the momentum. So I would say in the markets that you would expect us to be good in, the Pennsy Philly area, Jersey, Boston, New York, it’s going to be pretty good. One additional bit of color that I would want to add, though – we’ve got the multi-family representing about 50% of that activity, although we’re right within our ranges on that activity. So we think it’s going to be pretty good. We think it’s going to be broad-based. We’ve got a highly engaged group, so no reason not to think it won’t go well. Dave Rochester – Deutsche Bank: Great. All right, thanks guys.

Thank you. The next question is from Collyn Gilbert from Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Please go ahead. Collyn Gilbert – KBW: Thanks, good morning gentlemen. Just to follow up a little bit on that question, can you guys talk a little bit more about the DC initiative and what you intend to do down there, and how you intend to do it?

Yes Collyn, this is Joe, and I’ll take a shot at that again. As you know, we were tickled several years back with what we did in the Boston area – that went well, and we gradually started expanding that group. As you recall, really the pioneers, if you will, going into territories would be areas like commercial real estate and asset-based lending, we replicated that model and we’re replicating that model in the New York area and in the Philly area, with the frontrunners generally having been in that group, and then we filled back in with the middle market group. So precisely to Glenn’s comment, the leaders that will take charge in seeing what it is that we think we can accomplish in Washington with start with the CRE lender that we brought on board, and we also have presence with ABL; and then ultimately I think John Ciulla and team are going to have to make the determination of whether or not it’s robust enough to consider bringing in middle market banking and filling out that franchise. It has been a wonderful growth story for us, but out of the gate, precisely to Glenn’s point, we brought a seasoned in-market commercial real estate lender in, and our Bill Wrang is down there fairly regularly with him looking at what opportunities may be available. Collyn Gilbert – KBW: Okay, so you still would sort of characterize it in the early stages, and you’re not—

Precisely. Collyn Gilbert – KBW: Okay, all right. Just to talk on the lending side, is there anything in particular that would be driving—just the commercial classified credits now look like they’ve up-ticked for two quarters in a row. Is it one-off there, or are there any trends? Obviously, Joe, you’re talking about competitive pressures, the environment is intensifying, and I’m just trying to gauge what’s the timing before this trickles into credit cracks?

That’s a great point, and you’re right – they did tick up, and maybe the way I’d characterize it, I was looking at these numbers in the commercial bank, that classified number sits about as low as I’ve ever seen it at 2.5% of the total book, so Dan Bley and the credit team—we feel pretty good about that number. And of course, Collyn, there’s another side to that – what do we see with respect to NPLs and the charge-offs and those kinds of things, and those continue to be pretty good. I don’t want to paint a rosy picture here – we do do big tickets, and we’re now at that point where the numerator, if you will, is so small that you can add a $50 million transaction and really move the needle, so not a lot of names came in. I think one or two were—in fact, I got a flash of four came in, so it’s not big that’s going on there. So we’re watching it carefully, and that’s kind of why I made my comments when I tried to add some additional color for what Bill Wrang was bringing on the CRE book, because those guys are doing a real good job with the LTVs and DSE disciplines and not winning deals, winning the deals, I guess, that meet their standards. Collyn Gilbert – KBW: Okay, that’s very helpful, and then just one final question, Glenn, for you on the NIM. I think we were all sort of hoping that maybe the NIM was bottoming and we were—anyway, the NIM was bottoming, and obviously it didn’t this quarter. What was the surprise or what occurred that you didn’t anticipate that caused the NIM to fall more than what you were projecting?

Yes, I think it was on the investment security side, was the impact from the 10-year and how that affected CPRs, particularly in, say, the last month, the last month and a half where they accelerated. Now, CPRs are relative to particular bonds, and we saw higher premium bonds paying off more than typical. So usually when we see a CPR increase of, say, one, we would expect to see a $600,000 hit on net interest income, and in fact we saw almost a 1.2, so almost double the impact. That’s a function of what bonds chose to pay off, so that, I think, is the bigger surprise as far as with respect to NIM. So when I look at the decline in basis points, the 7 basis points, about 5 is attributable to the securities portfolio. Collyn Gilbert – KBW: Yes, okay.

Also just to add to that, and then the reinvestment rate—

Yes. I mean, there’s two things in there, and there’s the investment portfolio. So the reinvestment rate, and that we had $250 million come off at, say, 3.80 and was reinvested at, say, 2.64, so there was 116 basis points that you could characterize as churn, right? Collyn Gilbert – KBW: Okay, yeah. Got it, okay.

So that 20 or 30 basis points in the 10-year really does make a difference.

It does. Collyn Gilbert – KBW: Got it. Okay, that’s all I had. Thanks guys.

Thank you. The next question is from John Pancari of Evercore Partners. Please go ahead. John Pancari – Evercore Partners: Good morning guys. Along the lines of the margin question, it looks like your new money yields on loans, looking at 5/31 there, pulled back notably in the second quarter, so can you give us a little bit of color there? I know you referenced competitive pressure you’re seeing on pricing and structure on CRE. Can you talk a little bit about the competition you’re seeing, and do you expect that the new money yields can continue to trend lower?

This is Joe speaking again. I would say I would expect—I guess the one bit of good news is it’s about 100% floating is what we’re putting on in the book. The other side of that is that yes, we are seeing the new money yields going in. Interestingly, some of the payoffs have been about that same number, so that’s good news for us. We typically ask our team as we prep for this call to give us the dynamics on how the markets are changing, and one of the comments that they’ve been fairly consistent that pricing is settling out a little bit right now. There is still competition out there, but it’s settling out. So I would say it’s there, and it’s going to push us; but when you have the return on capital discipline that put forward, basically what it means is we’re going to have work harder to get transactions to meet our pricing hurdles.

But to the question about more intensity, it’s really intense out there right now, and if the 10-year stays in the level of 2.50 or higher or swap rates up around 2.60, 2.70, we don’t think there’s going to be significant additional compression on new money. John Pancari – Evercore Partners: Okay, all right. Then secondly on the—real quick just on the wealth management revenue again, the main reason for the flat rev is the departures, correct, for that total wealth management line?

That had a meaningful impact, yes. John Pancari – Evercore Partners: Okay, and is there—I know you replaced the people, and it sounds like you’re a little bit more positive now, but any potential for incremental departures? I mean, could this cause anything, because I know with wealth management businesses, once you get a string of departures and AUM declines, it can really get moving.

Yes, I think most of that action happened in a concentrated period and that we’re solid and strong and the team is committed. You know, what happens is you want everything to go smoothly and everybody to be happy with very significant fundamental change that you’re making, but it doesn’t always play out that way, so I think that’s what happened here. I know that the team led by Dan Fitzpatrick is very solicitous of the people in the group. They seem to be quite cohesive, they are quite optimistic. We’ve got a really good model. I mentioned that the pipelines have doubled in the deposit and the lending side, AUMs are up, referrals are up. Everything is a go there, so we’re not expecting to have any serious additional fallout. John Pancari – Evercore Partners: Okay, and if I could just hop back to the margin real quick, I appreciate the color you gave us for the third quarter margin. Can you give us a little bit of color about the margin beyond the third quarter, particularly given the securities yield pressure, the loan yield pressure, and CD costs moving higher?

Sure. So I think the fourth quarter, we expect the investment portfolio to bottom out, and then you heard the comments with respect to the commercial portfolio where we think that we’re sort of at the bottom there, too. So I think flattish to you should start—begin to see an increase. Now of course, this all depends on rates, and we’re thinking that the 10-year is going to continue to go up. I think our average for the third quarter, or what we’re thinking based on the forward curve, is that the fourth quarter will have a 10-year about 288 basis points, all right? So we’re sitting here today at 2.65, we’re thinking the third quarter we go up 9 basis points on average to 2.75, and then another 15 to 2.88, and that’s in line with the forward curve. But all our assumptions are obviously driven by that. John Pancari – Evercore Partners: Okay, and if I could just ask one last question around rate sensitivity, have you guys talked about the amount of deposits that could potentially move off your balance sheet at all once short rates move higher?

Sure, yeah. We do (indiscernible). It’s probably about 5% of total deposits. I think that— John Pancari – Evercore Partners: That could decline?

I’m sorry? John Pancari – Evercore Partners: That could move off your balance sheet, correct?

That could move off, and I think— (audio lost) And then on the funding side, I’ve highlighted sort of three things – the brokered CDs, the purchase of LIBOR caps, and the forward-starting swaps, and those two combined, I think, well position the bank for the eventual rise in rates.

Okay secondly, last quarter you had mentioned, Glenn, on the call that you expected mortgage banking to rebound in the second half of the year and sort of in that range a $1.5 million to $2 million a quarter. Is that still a good estimate?

Yes, I think that is a good estimate, and you have to keep in mind that there’s about $300,000 lower cost to market of unrealized gains that we’ll recognize in the third quarter that we couldn’t recognize in the second quarter, so that’s part of it. But really, Mark, it was driven—you look at the first quarter activity, which was down to our all-time low on a purchase, at least for the last couple quarters, and the 14%--that translated into a 14% decline in settlement volume. So we expect it to come back over the $1 million level, so I think a $1.2 million, $1.3 million is the appropriate level.

The last question I have sort of follows up on Collyn’s earlier question about the DC expansion. Can you help us think about how large this portfolio is likely to become, and also give us a sense whether this lending initiative expansion is likely to include some opening of branches in that market or acquisition of branches in that market?

Sure, I’ll take a shot at that, and Jim may want to add to it with respect to the branch notion. Typically what we’ve been doing, Mark, in these large markets, at least at this juncture, it’s been effectively branchless. We’ve got the one major branch bank in the Boston area, and we have our New York offices really piggybacking on our asset-based lending franchise. So really, the notion is to lead first with the commercial bank and in those units where our—I guess I’d say our competencies are easily exportable, given the people we have. So if you think about—you know, you go down to Washington and you think about that business, that would essentially largely be coming out of the gate as a commercial real estate book. So if we saw over the next couple of years, I’ll say with respect to commercial real estate $150 million, that would be a good day, assuming it met our RAROC hurdles. So we like to give these things some amount of gestation and then we can accelerate. I think our Philly initiative we started many years ago, that’s in the $500 million-ish category today, so that gives you a feel for how we go at it.

Thank you.

And Mark, I’ll just add to that, that the way that we’re managing the program, we don’t need the retail exposure to be successful on the commercial side. We’ve demonstrated in Boston, it’s happening in New York and in Philadelphia, and I’m sure we’ll have the same experience in Washington. If you’re talking 10 years out, though, you’d have to think we probably would have some kind of additional physical presence there, just for the convenience of the people in the market, but not –a full-fledged retail franchise would not be necessary to make this strategy work.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from David Darst of Guggenheim Securities. Please go ahead. David Darst – Guggenheim Securities: Hey, good morning.

Hi David. David Darst – Guggenheim Securities: Jim, you were giving us some statistics on your sales per FTE year-to-date. Is any of that beginning to show the benefit of changes that you made to your incentive compensation system?

Oh, very definitely, and in fact we expect that productivity number to increase as a result of what we call the WIN program – the Webster Incentive program. We are seeing those people that have been through that program are producing at an increasingly higher rate; so I mentioned that we’re up 7% year-to-date. In terms of overall sales productivity, we expect that number to go higher. This principal agent arrangement on incentives is working beautifully because the interests of the seller are aligned with that of the client and for the benefit of the company as well. So we’re 7% year-to-date. Let’s say that the all-in rate should be closer to 12 to 15% productivity improvement, so you can actually sell the same amount or more by identifying and meeting your clients’ needs with a staff that is significantly smaller in size, very, very efficient. David Darst – Guggenheim Securities: So where would you say you are in rolling it out across the entire franchise? Are you through the pilot and it’s fully launched?

It’s through the pilot, it’s fully launched. It’s taking hold, so it takes a quarter or two to really see what it can do, but it is delivering as we had expected.

I think the only thing I would add is not only is productivity up, but we are selling the right products, meaning that the profitability is aligned with what we’re selling both in the center and in the distribution network, and that’s significant for us.

It actually—along those lines, one of the things we’ve talked about over the last couple years is our product and customer profitability model is a significant part of making sure that we have the alignment correct. I mentioned it in a shareholders’ letter a couple years ago that it would help us make better choices over the near term and could become a competitive advantage over the longer term, and we are getting closer to the latter. David Darst – Guggenheim Securities: Okay, got it. Thank you.

Thank you. Our final question comes from Matthew Kelley of Sterne Agee. Please go ahead. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Yes, hi guys. Getting back to that question on deposit sensitivity, just so I’m clear, you would expect an outflow of 5% of your deposit base under what interest rate scenario does that match up to?

I think that would be under a short-term increase of, say, 200 basis points. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Okay, got you.

So we call it the surge, Matt. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Yeah. Then on your $304 million of commercial real estate originations, you suggested that the yield on those originations was pretty close to the 3.73 portfolio yield – is that correct?

The yield on the – let’s see – on that book came in at—no. I would say that would have been an all float book yields, I’m going to guess would have been somewhere in—this is just going to be a guess. We’d have to give you the right number. I’m looking at the spreads as I’m talking to you at 213, but I want to guess it’s probably in the 270-ish area, but that would be ballpark. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: For real estate originations?

--CRE for the quarter. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Yeah, I’m looking at Slide 29, just the 304 million of originations.

Yeah, you know what? Just to make sure I give that to you correctly, why don’t I get that to you so I confirm that. I don’t want to— Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Okay, that’s fine.

Matt, you can see on Slide 32 where we have the commercial banking yields, or yield on the fundings, so it’s 333 for commercial banking in total, and that obviously consists of the commercial real estate component.

But I’ll come back to you with that, Matt. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: What’s your view on the Boston real estate market? A lot of development there on the residential condo front. What’s your exposure there, what’s your view of that market in terms of supply-demand absorption, and your activity in the Boston market?

The Boston market has been a very strong market for us, and it’s an intensely competitive market. We have seen decent absorption in that market, so we’re not seeing an AQ potential issues. It continues to be strong multi-family. Probably the big story there from our vantage point is that it’s another one of those intensely competitive markets, and when I was talking about earlier the fact that we’re not getting as many hits on the terms sheets we’re putting forward, I think that’s especially true in that market. We’re, quite frankly, surprised at some of the tickets that are being written by the smaller banks specifically there. But it’s a big market for us – half a billion dollars. It’s probably—I’ll bet you I’m pretty close on that number off the top of my head. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Got you. And then what was the commercial line utilization rate? Any change there and any change in kind of the overall health of the small and midsize C&I borrowing customer?

Yes, there’s really two—it’s interesting. There are really two areas where utilization is a dynamic process in the commercial bank. Really, the others are more term funding related items, and those areas are asset-based lending. That’s been very solid. Think of that in terms of if you ex out your letters of credit out of that stat, you’re talking about 54% to 56%. It’s been pretty solid over two years. The other interesting one, second best and second most important would be our middle market regional, and that’s lifted from about 37, 38 up to 42, so pretty good. Whether that means anything – we’ve seen the same articles in the newspapers. We’re not going to get too—we don’t want to get too far out in front of determining whether or not that’s a trend, but it’s not bad. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Got you. Last question on your agreement with Jones Lang, give us an update on the branch consolidation, total facilities cost, management – how that’s going, where we are in that progression, and how much cost savings is left on that side of the business.

Yes, I’d just say I mentioned in my remarks that we’d taken out 18,000 square feet out of the banking centers in the first half – that’s about 2.5% of the total and is consistent with the program we’ve had in effect for quite a while. We expect there will be additional opportunities to do some three-for-two, two-for-one consolidations. The number of banking centers is about the right size. They may have over time, we’ll have them be a little bit smaller, they may be better located. They’ll all be electronically outfitted. That’s part of—(audio lost), which is value-added beyond the lower cost of delivering the facilities management and other services that they provide to us. The effect of their impact really is probably you’re seeing it in the numbers at this point.

Yes, I would add that I think the last—you know, you’ll see more of this, but it’s really bigger than JLL. It’s about rationalizing our distribution network, so you’ll see additional closures this year or consolidations – like, three-for-one, I think, is potential for the fourth quarter, at least that’s what we’re working on. But really, the retail banking team keeps rationalizing the network. So it’s JLL helping us rationalize the network, but you’ll see that cost continue to come down. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: And what is the report card on deposit and customer retention? How does that compare to your expectations? As you close these branches, are you maintaining in line or less or more than what you anticipated as you start to close locations?

Yes, I think we’re generally in line with what we anticipated on the closures, so there is an attrition factor that’s probably close to 20, maybe a little over 20% when you do this. But that’s generally in line, I think, with the industry and what we anticipated seeing.

And we do a pretty thorough analysis office-by-office to make sure we know not just where the customers live and what other offices they could bank in, but how they bank today and where they use the ATMs and how much online banking they do, and whether they use mobile. So the ones that we’ve targeted for consolidation have been the ones that would give us the biggest yield, and our analytics have been very strong. Matthew Kelley –Sterne Agee: Got you. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is from Jake Civiello of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Jake Civiello – RBC Capital Markets: Hey, good morning guys.

Hi Jake. Jake Civiello – RBC Capital Markets: Glenn, you provided us with your expectations for the 10-year for the rest of the year, highlighting that they’re in line with the forward-swap curve, if I heard you correctly. Can you give us any perspective as to what would happen with the NIM if the 10-year actually stays flat for the rest of the year?

I don’t have those in front of me, but obviously there would be continued pressure. I think we’d probably go down to 3 to 4, and then maybe another 3 to 4 in the fourth quarter. Jake Civiello – RBC Capital Markets: So 3 to 4 each quarter, you’re saying?

Yeah, yeah. Jake Civiello – RBC Capital Markets: Okay.

We’re not predicting that.

But we’re not predicting it. I mean, I’m just— Jake Civiello – RBC Capital Markets: I know. None of us can predict what’s going to happen with the interest rates, so I’m just trying to get some perspective on if things stay static with what they are today.

But I think you’ve got to be careful about drawing any conclusion, then, about the securities portfolio, because again it depends on the bond selection and the individual securities selection, that you can’t extrapolate and draw a linear forecast from that. So we’ve been successful up to this quarter in outpacing NIM compression through portfolio increases, particularly on the commercial side. So this is one quarter where we’ve seen an impact from the securities portfolio, and again somewhat unexpected in that the 10-year didn’t go up and we saw CPRs, which typically have a 60 or 90-day lag, sort of hit on the securities portfolio. Jake Civiello – RBC Capital Markets: Sure, that’s fair. I understand. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no further questions in queue at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to management for any closing remarks.

Thank you, Manny, and thank you all for being with us today.

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