Good morning. My name is Regina and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Wells Fargo Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question and answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Jim Rowe, Director of Investor Relations. Mr. Rowe, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Regina, and good morning everyone. Thank you for joining our call today where our Chairman and CEO, John Stumpf, and our CFO, John Shrewsberry will discuss third quarter results and answer your questions. This call is being recorded. Before we get started, I would like to remind you that our third quarter earnings release and quarterly supplement are available on our website at wellsfargo.com. I’d also like to caution you that we may make forward-looking statements during today’s call that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from expectations are detailed in our SEC filings; including the Form 8-K filed today containing our earnings release and quarterly supplement. Information about any non-GAAP financial measures referenced, including a reconciliation of those measures to GAAP measures, can also be found in our SEC filings, in the earnings release and in the quarterly supplement available on our website. I will now turn our call over to our Chairman and CEO, John Stumpf.

Thank you, Jim. And thank you, good morning and thanks for joining us today. We earned $5.8 billion in the third quarter, as our diversified business model generated growth in revenue, loans, deposits and net income compared with a year ago. We remain focussed on meeting the financial needs of our customers and are investing in businesses so we may continue to meet the evolving needs of our customers in the future. The strength of our franchise also positioned us well for the acquisitions we have recently announced. We are excited that the transactions with GE Capital will enable us to deepen relationships and increase our presence in commercial businesses that serve the real economy. General Electric, like Wells Fargo is one of America’s great companies and the businesses we are acquiring are industry leaders with proven business models and exceptionally talented and experienced people. We are excited to have them join the Wells Fargo team. John Shrewsberry will provide more details on the recent GE Capital announcements at the end of the call. Let me now highlight our results this quarter compared with the year ago. We earned $1.05 in earnings per share, up 3% from a year ago. We generated $21.9 billion of revenue, up 3% with growth in both net interest income and non-interest income. We grew pre-tax, pre provision profit by 6%. We continue to have broad based loan growth with total loans reaching a record $903.2 billion. This is a bit larger than the size of our loan portfolio at the time of the Wachovia merger at the end of 2008. However, the quality of our current portfolio is significantly better than at the time of the merger. Our core loan portfolio increased by $73.4 billion, or 9% from a year ago reflecting both strong…

Thank you, John and good morning everyone. My comments will follow the presentation included in the quarterly supplement, starting on Page 2. John and I will then answer your questions. Our third quarter results demonstrated consistent financial performance and momentum across a variety of key business drivers. We continued to have strong loan and deposit growth across our diversified commercial and consumer businesses. We grew revenue by generating growth in net interest income and non-interest income. We produced positive operating leverage as our expenses declined. Credit quality remained strong with net charge-offs of only 31 basis points of average loans and we operated within our targeted ranges for ROA, ROE, efficiency and net payout ratio. Let me now highlight these key drivers in more detail. On page three, we showed the strong year-over-year growth John highlighted including revenue, pre-tax, pre provision profit, loans, deposits, net income and EPS and we reduced our common shares outstanding by 106.5 million shares over the past year. Turning to page four, we continued to benefit from the strength of our balance sheet which has positioned us well to take advantage of growth opportunities including our recently announced acquisitions. We grew total assets by 7% from a year ago and 2% from second quarter with growth in loans, short term investments and investment securities. Our funding sources increased with continued deposit growth and increased long term debt and short term borrowings. Turning to the income statement overview on page five, revenue increased $557 million from the second quarter with growth in net interest and non-interest income and we generated positive operating leverage as expenses declined. As shown on page six, we had strong broad based loan growth in the third quarter, our 17th consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth. Our core loan portfolio grew by $73.4…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from the line of Joe Morford with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good afternoon everyone -- good morning, everyone. Still too early.

Hi, Joe, good morning.

Just -- I guess following up first on the last comments about the GE Capital acquisitions, just I guess curious to learn a little bit more about fit with the existing platform that you have where some of the synergies are. And then, any color you may be able to share in terms of the profitability of these businesses or the relative yields. I guess I was a little surprised you're saying maybe only modest earnings accretion. Is that due to some of the expenses you're bringing on with their staff and/or the higher near-term borrowing costs?

So with respect to the first part of your question, Joe the businesses line up well as we said the commercial distribution finance business is an asset based lending business that operates between OEMs on the one hand and the distributors on the other. It will fit in Well Fargo alongside what we describe as Well Fargo Capital Finance, our ABL business. The GE team has leadership and speciality in their version of ABL lending but of course we’ve got the team that’s been together for 20 plus years in ABL and this will complement them nicely. And as we mentioned the technology that they used to run their business is also something that we think we can benefit from in our broader business overtime. The vendor finance business aligns well with our equipment finance business. Our equipment finance business tends to focus on the users of equipment, their equipment finance business has big relationships with OEMs who are selling equipment and so we think that they are very complimentary when put together. With respect to the question about 2016 accretion, we think there will be plenty of expenses in order -- people expenses, technology integration expenses, premises expenses perhaps another thing. So we're focused on doing that integration the right way. It's going to take some time. We're going to be very thoughtful about it. And we're more focused on the medium to long term impact than what this means in 2016.

Joe, I've been around the acquisition game for a long time and what we typical have said in the past and this is probably truer with the depository that we look for accretion by year three. It will happen sooner in this case, because its not as complex, but we have learned that to do these things well you practice on yourself not on your customers. You get everything done right and we really look at this as John mentioned, as a long-term value-add to the company. So things that closed in the first quarter you bound to have expenses around integration to get this really done right.

Actually Joe, you also asked about funding. And that is part of the equation here. We will be term funding components of this, so it's not as easy as absorbing existing cash. I think some of the early analyst reports have reflected that belief. So, we'll be layering in some term funding in advance of the assets coming on. Then we'll have some incremental costs et cetera and we're trying to maintain our liquidity buffers through and after the addition of these assets. So, makes it a little bit more complicated than some of the math that I've seen so far.

Okay. That's all really helpful. I appreciate that color. I guess the other question was just I recognize the equity investment gains this quarter really came from a number of different investments. But any color on maybe what's a good run rate there or just maybe market sensitive revenues overall, recognizing they were down a couple hundred million this quarter?

In both cases I would look at something like a five-quarter average of equity gains on its own and then equity gains, gains on debt and trading activities as well. I think they're probably more representative of a run rate.

Okay. Thanks so much.

You're welcome, Joe.

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

Thanks for taking my questions. You talked about the expenses being elevated with legal, and last quarter there was about a $225 million increase. Is that still the same number that's kind of embedded in the overall operating expenses this quarter?

Marty, there is going to be a run rate of what we had last quarter, where we are this quarter probably for a period of time. I mean, each individual legal matter is its own thing and we can't comment on litigation. But I would think of them as part of the environment that we're in and operating losses in total are probably going to remain about where they are. If they begin to come back down, that would be great. But I wouldn't consider this to be outsized at, call it, $500 million for the quarter for total operating losses.

The other thing is that you look at wholesale banking, that's where you see some of the pressures that we have seen in other banks with capital markets activities. You had the reduction in the fee income but not much reduction in expenses. You talked about compensation expenses going lower but were offset by losses. Can you break those two things out so we can get a feel for the two components in the expense line?

So I would expect the expenses that are directly related to revenue to generally, especially over the course of the year to reflect their production of revenue might not be as linear from quarter to quarter as revenue moves up or down. And that's been true for some time. We have operating losses like a legal settlement for example, that will temporarily elevate expenses in that business unit at the firm while they may remain elevated, they don't necessarily remain elevated in wholesale banking or in any individual segment. So I wouldn't expect for example, compensation expenses cycle for the firm as a whole or for the division as a whole as a result of a one time in an operating loss. But all told, I would say that we pay for performance in that group. Our total approach to performance based comp seems to hold very well with the revenue sources that we have and the operating and the results of the segment make sense to the cycle or frankly for any full year.

Thanks. Any further duration extension on the assets structure given the outlook that rates will stay lower for longer? I appreciate.

Not much. You can see that we added a few billion dollars of net securities to our investment portfolio. We like where we are from an asset sensitivity standpoint today. We're going to be adding these incremental assets that we talked about in connection with the GE portfolio, some of which are leases, so you think of them as a little bit longer term and fixed rate which will have the same impact as adding securities. So, we've slowed down a little bit in adding duration in the third quarter compared to the second quarter which I think you can see in the deck and we still have conviction that we're probably in a lower for longer rate scenario.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Mike Mayo with CLSA. Please go ahead.

I just wanted to follow-up on that last comment. You believe you're in a lower for longer rate environment. Do you think the U.S. economy is getting better or worse, I guess, I'm hearing on the one hand John you're mentioning some additional confidence in some areas. On the other hand you mentioned global economy is being the headwind, so which is it? Is the U.S. economy getting better or worse?

Yes, Mike, it’s a good question. I think – we think it's getting better, but only incrementally better. So, as we – none of us know of course, but this year the GDP in the U.S. let's call it 2/1 maybe 2/2, maybe next year as maybe 2/5 something like that, 2/4 to 2/5, so better but not substantially better. You know us well, so you know that most of our business is U.S. centric, but clearly some of our businesses that we support and do business with have a international component to them, either sales or whatever the case is and the rest of the world, the biggest risk I think the U.S. economy is what's happening in the rest of the world, I think that's unquestionable. So – but better but not hugely better.

With respect to rates lower for longer applies. We think of it is at the short end and the medium to long end of the curve and so the Fed starts moving rates in December or in the first quarter, we will be sitting here a year from now we think with one, two or three, 25 basis point moves under our belt at probably best case with respect to how far things might move. And unless there's meaningful inflation which isn't anybody's radar screen right, than it doesn't feel like that's going to have an impact on long terms rates, it feels like more of a flatter curve environment and long rates in the vicinity of where they are now and what something really different begins to emerge. And of course like good news is for round about our forecast we performed better. We're constructing ourselves to do well in this environment. But if we end up in a higher short term or higher long-term rate environment than we're forecasting that's actually, that's not good for Wells Forgo.

With that expectation are you taking the second look at expenses, I mean, your efficiency ratio this quarter moved in a better range, but do you have a plan B to say, we expect these headwinds to last for longer, therefore we're going to do something extra?

Yes. I describe it as a full time plan B, which is they were always looking a way to be more efficient. We highlighted a couple of them over the last few quarters. We took a hard look at T&E a year ago. We're down 25% year-over-year. We've talked about our real estate strategy we where shrunk by 20 million square feet over the last few years and still have more to go. As there are varieties of programs like that, but most of that savings gets absorbed by areas where we're changing or improving the firm. We're spending money on compliance, on risk management, on technology, on innovation. So I've got some conviction that we're not going to move below the higher end of our range, while we're still in this lower rate environment because whatever savings we get by being thrifty we end up reinvesting into the programs that I mentioned.

Yes. Just to put an emphasizes on that Mike, expenses get a lot of discussion around here and we are keenly focus on them, because as John mentioned he saved – and we think of it in ways of what will the customer pay for and what makes us a stronger long term provider of services to our customers and to be a more relevant company to all our constituents. And you save in one side and you invest on the other side. And some of those investments have been fairly significant. But it’s a constant drumbeat around here.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

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

Yes, good morning. Just to follow-up on Joe's question. John, could you give us a sense of what the average yield of the 32 billion in GE assets that you're putting on and what the fee income generation was for last year?

No. Just because we haven't disclosed the yields on that portfolio, but I can tell you Erika, it looks a lot like our – like that portion of our own wholesale portfolio and I would add frankly that their approach to risk analysis of their loans looks like our risk analysis of their loans and their pricing on those loans looks like our pricing of similar loans. So, you should think of it as a component piece of what our wholesale banking outcomes look like. And in fee generation, is the question was GE generated in fees with those loans or what…

Yes. Or is that business that you're acquiring generated in fees?

So, the revenue streams of that business are more net interest income streams rather than fee streams. I mean, there are certainly loan fees but they get amortized into yield. I can tell you in our own analysis of this and I'm sure in yours also, as we look out over some period of time we can imagine a lot of other products and services that we'll be providing to the same customers that GE wasn't in a position to offer them directly, so its part of the long-term value creation, but there's isn't a run rate that in there today, because GE was a primarily a lender rather than a full service provider of banking capabilities.

Got it. And just wanted to get some clarification on your comments earlier because adding these assets have the same impact of extending duration on the asset side, should we expect cash balances to stay relatively stable from the average balances of the third quarter?

It depends on what's happening with deposit growth over the timeframe that we're talking about. This is five or six months in the future, so all things seeing equal, but maybe you could say us and by cash – cash and HQLA are high quality liquid assets are interchangeable in some ways, so I would look at the some of those things, not just cash depending on how our rate view evolves and what goes on in terms of the opportunity to get more invested et cetera. These are risk assets, that's one sort of use of cash, cash at the fed or cash in treasuries are two other related uses of cash so, I don't want to over complicated, but it’s a little bit different than just the cash balance.

Got it. And just to sneak one last one in. Your results clearly demonstrates your strength on your relationship for the consumer in the corporate side. Given your balance sheet and capital strength and some difficult headlines that we are seeing from European bank, how are you thinking in terms of your medium-term strategy to increase your market share with institutional clients, given potential market shared dislocation and your strength in capital, particularly in leverage capital?

I wouldn't think of our medium term strategy any differentially than how you've seen us behave in the recent past in that area. We have great relationships with our large number of institutional clients and counterparties and there are something interesting things to do, but we've got high regard for our capital on our funding and real meaningful expectations for how we get paid for using it as we work on those relationship. So we're already doing that from time to time something interesting will reveal itself and we'll consider it, but there is no change in strategy that it’s going to result in us having a different risk profile or trying to fill our major vacuum that maybe being left behind by European bank or something else over the next few years.

Yes. What you would liked about us in the past you like about us in the future regarding that.

Got it. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Wasserstrom with Guggenheim Securities. Please go ahead.

Thanks and good morning.

Hi, Eric.

Hi. How are you? I just want to make sure that I'm fully understanding kind of what the key points of leverage are in the income statement as we look out into next year. Obviously it seems like the biggest contributor as a revenue driver is asset growth stemming in part from these acquisitions, but given sort of NIM commentary and the efficiency ratio commentary, should we expect positive operating leverage into next year or more basically zero?

Well, we are always striving to generate positive operating leverage, so that's a goal as we set out to plan for the coming period. In terms of what happens it will be – it will reflect what we're primarily emphasizing which is the growth in relationships which leads to a growth in loans and a growth in deposit, credit discipline and further penetration on all in our product areas with the customers that we have. Other macro events sit on top of that with respect to where rates go et cetera, tough to know. And we're not as focused on that or can't be as focused on that, because we can't control some of those outcomes. So we're setting ourselves up to have expense discipline. We're setting ourselves up to add relationships. We're setting ourselves up to deliver into those relationships which you see in loans deposits and many of our product areas, but how it lands in a given quarter is more difficult to forecast.

Eric, we're enjoying some of the strongest growth years we have seen and what we describe as the core building blocks of long-term shareholder value creation, relationship, loans, deposits, depths of relationship, new primary checking household growth. And as John mentioned depending on the macro environment not all that shows up in that value creation the next quarter, but over the long period or even the interim period that is – the best way we think to successfully grow and add to the things that are customers and our shareholders value.

No, certainly. So it sounds like than its basically top line led operating leverage stemming in part from continued shift in mix of revenue sources, is that fair?

Well, we surely want the top line, but we're watching the expenses were nothing goes on examined around here and we'll see how things turn out.

And if I can just do one quick follow-up on asset quality, it sounds like from your commentary the go forward expectation should be for provision to roughly equal NCOs, is that right?

So, it's up to forecast. We've gone through five years of reserve releasing. We've been saying for a few quarters that what's going to happened, subsequently it's going to reflect loan growth, portfolio performance and general economic outcomes. Does that mean that we remain at a no release, no provision level? That's too precise to forecast. But it should, if we grow our portfolio and the new assets look like the assets that we already have that we'll begin providing for those which could become more of net outcome as we're already had a generational low in terms of charge-offs which means that credit performance can't really improve meaningful from where we are today. It's already that good.

Great. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

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

Good morning, guys.

Good morning.

John, I was hoping you could talk for a moment on some of the changes in the loan yields within the commercial buckets. A few of them like commercial mortgage, construction, leasing, they came under a little more pressure than I would have thought. I imagine at least to a certain extent that's due to both the financing on the GE deals, but was curious to get your color and thoughts on what might be going on there?

Yes. So I wouldn't think of that as attributable to those assets coming on. It really has more to do with the variable sources that loan fees that sometimes accelerate that run through their PCI recoveries or other things that are more – that are harder to forecast in more one time, so you see them changing these two yields and these two dates side by side, but its not a general change in the inherent yield or the customer yield on the portfolio.

Okay. All right. That makes sense. And then just one sort of nitpicky question. Did you guys quantify anywhere the size of the gain from the Warranty Solutions business? I think when you announce it sold it for $150 million in cash, but I wasn't sure where it had been recorded on the books?

Yes. It's less than a penny per share. I don't think that we did put that anywhere but you're the first person to ask it, so there you go.

All right. Okay. I think that’s' – I'm all set. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of David Hilder with Drexel Hamilton. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thank you. I noticed what appeared to be reversal of prior deferred comp expenses and wondered what the reason for that was?

I don't think if it is a reversal, but every quarter our employee benefit expense on the one hand and our trading results on the other hand reflect the outcomes from our deferred comp approach. Our employees voluntarily defer comp and we neutralize the outcomes for them and we provide that return and we do it on a hedged basis, so that our results reflect. When our equity markets go up, our trading line goes up and our employ benefit expense goes up. When equity markets move down not just to generalize, the reverse is true. In this quarter we had equity markets down. We had trading revenue down and we had an equal amount of employee benefit expense down. So it's really just the cyclical ebbs and flows of that program. There's no change in approach or reversal of anything.

Great. Thanks very much.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Nancy Bush with NAB Research, LLC. Please go ahead.

Good morning guys. How are you?

Good morning.

Nancy, good morning.

Two questions for you. John, when you did the initial GE portfolio acquisition I guess that was couple of quarters ago, you said that you were going to continue to look at assets at GE and obviously you did. I guess my question is GE going to continue to be keeps on giving, I mean, is there more there that you're looking at or is this sort of the end of the GE pot?

So, you may have seen the list in the paper today of the 13 announcements that they've had since they declared that they were going to wind down GE capital and three of those line items are attributable to our activity, the commercial real estate, the railcar and now the commercial businesses. And we just incidentally we look very closely at many of the other things that look like they might have a fit for Wells Fargo and for one reason or another they were a better fit for somebody else either because of the asset type or the pricing scenario or something else. I think this pretty much concludes their U.S. business, I think they've got some things to sell around the world and because of our U.S. centric approach its probably true that we're not –we wouldn't be playing a role like the role that we played in these three on those future acquisitions. Now having said that, we've been advisor in some of these other transactions, we've been a lender to a winning bidder in some of these other transactions. There maybe other things to do. But in the way we've approach these three businesses that were of these three portfolios that we're acquiring. I don't think there is more of that coming from GE capital.

My second question would be whether the integration of this latest large business from GE is basically going to preclude you from looking at other possible asset portfolios et cetera at other companies due to the funding issues?

Yes, Nancy, I would answer it this way, never is a really definitive word, but I'd say on the other hand the focus right here now is to do this and do it really well. This is a lot to say grace over. We have lots of experiences in acquisitions. We're going to treat this as a merger, doing it well provide huge benefits to all those involved and that's job 1, job 2 and job 3 right now I do this really well.

IF you guys could just clarify I mean you're going – are you going to be moving people, how is this physically going to work?

These businesses are primarily headquartered in the Chicago area and the Dallas area and nothing about that is intent to change. So there maybe some opportunity to -- for their people in the field to team up with our people in the field, but the bulk of the people will remain, doing what they're doing, right where they're doing and we'll figure out how to help, how to improve, how to optimize but not a big migration. Yes, we have real estate and locations and people on the Wells side in both those locations, so…

Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question will come from the line of John Pancari with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.

Good morning.

Hey, John.

Back to the loan yield topic, just based on your answer there is it -- are you implying that that commercial yield decline of 15 basis points that we saw this quarter could actually snap back next quarter?

No it depends on what happens with resolutions, with prepayments that accelerate loan fees into yield etcetera, so it could. I'd say as a general matter based on where we are in the cycle there are fewer resolutions, fewer PCI windups today and I wouldn't expect. We're not making bad loans anymore, so we're buying them for that matter in quite that way. So I would expect that type of accounting to quiet down and more reflect the amortization of loan fees into yield, and then of course the acceleration of those when loans prepay. We are in the higher commercial loan prepayment environment probably just because things are so liquid. But I wouldn't expect it to snapback, but it certainly could increase a little bit, move around etcetera.

Okay. And then one other thing on the margin, the swaps, I just want to get an idea of how much the swaps benefited the margin in the quarter and then also your appetite to add incremental swaps?

So, we don't break out what the swaps benefit is to the margin as we have described, our approach to adding duration to the balance sheet for everyone's benefit, a portion of that’s been done by swapping floating rate loans defect which has very similar impact to adding fixed rate securities to the portfolio. We don't anticipate a lot more of that activity. Today, I mentioned in response to one of the earlier questions that we think we are about where we need to be from an asset sensitivity perspective that could change its deposit flows, ebb and flow and we could end up with a lot of more liquidity to deploy, but at the moment, I think, we're – we like where we are from an asset sensitivity point of view and so we probably won't be moving rapidly down the path toward meaningfully growing the securities portfolio today or for swapping, more floating rate loans.

Okay. And then lastly just on the credit side, on energy just want to see if you are in a position to quantify your energy reserve right at this point and then also your criticized ratio in energy lending?

We don't breakout the components of the allowance. But I can tell you that our approach through the first and second redetermination dates since the price of crude moved down meaningfully has been from my observation a conservative approach. We're re-rating credits down before waiting for information from borrowers based on what we know about relationship and trying to get ahead of this. So, well frankly as I mentioned in the services space we could continue to see more negative migration or even some meaningful negative migration in the industry. We feel great about where we are from allowance perspective in the energy space where we stand today. But we don't break out the component pieces of the allowances.

Okay. Thanks. One more very quick one on that topic. The AFS portfolio with oil and gas bonds, I think you indicated a couple quarters back that it was around $1.5 billion. Is it still around that amount?

I don't have the total in front of me, but I can tell you which is part of your question, actually 1.4 is the number. We took some OTTI in the quarter in that space. Those are of the corporate names in that portfolio, energy names were the ones that were most under water for the longest period of time which certainly a part of our review for other than temporary impairment and in the quarter in our results reflects taking those impairments through the P&L. So we feel good about our bases in those assets.

Got it. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final question will come from the line of Paul Miller with FBR. Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you very much. Most of my questions have been answered. But on the jumbo loan market, it's one of the areas I think if you're not number one, I think you are number one, but we're seeing more and more market share go to the jumbo markets. Can you add more color around that? And then in the loans that you put in your portfolio my guess is most of them are jumbos. And where do you feel that you're going to be filled up there?

So the loans that we put up as single family mortgage loans that we put on our balance sheet, virtually all of them are prime jumbo loans because as you know there is no secondary market for those loans, so to serve those customers we end up keeping them.

You know frankly we – there is no magical numbers in terms of when we are full. Our total single family real estate portfolio hasn’t shrunk or grown in the aggregate over the last few years meaningfully, the level stayed about the same, but we’ve have home equity paying off. We've had pick-a-pay paying off, we’ve had other lower quality loans winding down and prime jumbo loans winding up a little bit. And I guess I would anticipate that to continue as jobs are stronger and housing is stronger there are more people looking at those types of homes requiring those types of loans and only a balance sheet lender can provide that loan because there’s no place in size for a mortgage company or any place else to go. There is no government program and there is no private label market.

I’d also add this, Paul that, as a percentage even though the overall real estate, present real estate totals have not changed, the quality has improved significantly and while the totals were the same since we’ve grown our loans the percentage of those loans as a percentage of our overall portfolio, loan portfolio is down and those jumbos also tend to have a bit – they tend to turn over a bit because they have a little less duration because those folks tend to move more often and so forth. So, and these are for our very best customers and it’s – and we are – we should be like that asset class.

Okay, guys. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. This concludes the call. Thank you all for joining us. We always appreciate your interest and involvement and again for all the questioners. We will see you here three months from now; it will be 2016 reflecting our fourth quarter earnings. So thank you very much. Bye, bye.

Ladies and gentlemen this does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for participating. And you may now disconnect.