Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the OMAM Earnings Conference Call and Webcast for the Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2016. During the call, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. After the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this call is being recorded today, February 2 at 08:00 AM Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Brett Perryman, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Brett.

Thank you. Good morning and welcome to OMAM’s conference call to discuss our results for the fourth quarter and full year 2016. Before we get started, I would like to note that certain comments made on this call may constitute forward-looking statements for the purposes of the Safe Harbor provision under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are identified by words such as expect, anticipate, may, intends, believes, estimate, project and other similar expressions. Such statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the factors described in OMAM’s filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 15, 2016, under the heading “Risk Factors” and on the Company’s current report on Form 8-K with respect to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2016 and December 12, 2016. Any forward-looking statements that we make on this call are based on assumptions as of today and we undertake no obligation to update these statements as a result of new information or future events. We urge you not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. During this call, we will discuss non-GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP measures is included in today’s earnings press release, which is available in the Investor Relations section of our website, where you will also find the slides that we will use as part of our discussion this morning. Today’s call will be led by Peter Bain, our President and Chief Executive Officer; and Steve Belgrad, our Chief Financial Officer. I will now turn the call over to Peter.

Thank you, Brett. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to be with us this morning. I’ll make a few opening comments about the business and then turn it over to Steve for a little more detail on the financial results. And then, as always we will look forward to conversation with you about the business and your questions and discussion. Starting with the analyst presentation and starting on slide three in terms of overview and highlights, our GAAP EPS for the quarter was $0.21 and for the full year was $1.05. Turning to economic net income or ENI which is how we run the business, our fourth quarter ENI per share was $0.33 which is a 10% increase over the prior year quarter and our full year ENI per share was $1.21 which is just a little more than 2% down from 2015 and really the entire differential in 2016’s ENI per share is a function of the decline in performance fees reflecting the market environment throughout the course of the year. On the flow front, we had a very strong quarter. We generated over a $1.5 billion of net client cash flow positive in the quarter, which brought the full year results of a net outflow of just down under $1.6 billion and importantly, the $1.5 of NCCF translated into $14.6 million of organic revenue growth in the quarter, and that brought our full year organic revenue growth in 2016 to $11 million. 2016 is the fifth consecutive year in which OMAM has generated organic revenue growth for our shareholders. That flow in the quarter was generated by $9.9 billion of sales which surpassed Q1, 2016 as the best sales quarter in over a decade and we continued the positive spread trend in the flow in…

Great, thanks Peter and good morning everyone. The fourth quarter of 2016 was a positive one for OMAM and our clients. As near-term investment performance improved U.S. markets recovered and [Indiscernible] was positive led by a strong December. We are also able to execute on the capital management buyback program we discussed in the third quarter, and saw the beginnings of Landmark’s positive contribution to earnings and flows. While the financial impact of these positive events had only a minor effect on our fourth-quarter results, given that several were backend loaded in December, this should position the company for a strong 2017 assuming markets retain a normal trajectory. We expect Landmark to continue to be a strong contributor of earnings growth in 2017, particularly in the second half of the year, if their AUM increases as we anticipate. And our year-end AUM of $240.4 billion relative to our fourth-quarter average AUM of $235 billion means that we go into the year with over $5 billion of additional assets in our run rate revenue relative to the fourth quarter. Likewise, our December buyback of 6 million shares should increase EPS by about 5% in 2017. So we are cautiously optimistic about the year ahead. I’ll give additional thoughts on 2017 at the end of this presentation. Comparing Q4, 2016 to Q4, 2015 economic net income was up 6.6% quarter-over-quarter to $38.9 billion or $0.33 per share, driven by a strong market in the second half of the year and the inclusion of Landmark for the full fourth quarter of 2016. Total revenue increased $22.9 million or 13.7% as higher growth in management fees were partially offset by reduced performance fees, which fell $1.8 million. Management fee revenue increased by 15 5% as average assets were up approximately 10% and the yield…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Bill Katz of Citi. Your line is open.

Okay. Thanks very much for taking the questions this morning. Appreciate all the disclosures exceptionally helpful. Maybe starting with Landmark, sort of based on, I know you maybe limit to what you can say, but it seems like based on the presentation, it looks like about $800 million of new assets coming in from that business, so I just want to confirm if that’s correct. Also I wanted if you could talk to the quality of the feedback you're getting in terms of the appetite for the new offerings and is there any way sort of maybe or why [ph] is you’re thinking on the range of accretion as look at 2017, I guess some of its embedded in your guidance right now, just try to triangulate all that into our model? Thanks.

Bill thanks for asking me a whole bunch of questions, the lawyers won’t let me answer, but what I can share with you is the way you’re reading the presentation and the breakdown of the AUM is correct that we acquired Landmark in August that had $8.8 billion at September 30. They had $9.7 billion at 12/31 and they did contribute therefore that number to our flow in the quarter and we’re very pleased about it. And it's consistent with our views as to what we expected when we partner with them. Its very difficult because they are in process now of that fundraising for me to engage in conversation about it, because I can't fall into the black hole of being deemed to be engaging in an offering securities, so I can't really give you comment on whether the accretion is proceeding along with our expectations and sort of how the fundraising is going. I’m just not lead to address it, but certainly Landmark is precisely what we had believe it to be in and continue to believe it to be, so that process is ongoing.

Yes. As Peter said, nothing is really changed in our views at all from what we've indicated previously and that should be captured in the guidance for 2017.

Right. Okay. That’s very helpful. And then just within -- I certainly appreciate the powerful improvement sequentially and particularly impacted Landmark, within the particular line items, there was little bit of erosion global equity and fixed income. Is that just -- impact, or is there was any kind of pricing degradation going on underneath it?

Yes. I mean there is – what that really represents is really market-driven mix within those broader categories. So, if you think about it during the fourth quarter you had very different movements in markets that impacted the average assets. So, while U.S. equity markets went up substantially you had emerging markets which are generally for us higher fee assets going down in those – the market index went down and April was roughly flat. So, if you're looking at that broader category of non-U.S/local what you really had is the lower fee elements of those categories either were flat or slightly up and the higher fee elements [Indiscernible] were down because of markets. So that’s would really drove the change in fee rate.

So it really is market mixed, Bill and not an inherent change in the fees themselves they we’re earning.

Got you. And just one last one from me, and thanks for taking all the questions in this morning. I guess after season earnings season of just very difficult comps, you sort of pleasant surprise both on fee rates and flows. Putting Landmark aside for a moment, could you talk a little about what you’re hearing in the institutional channel in terms of qualitative you made in the pipeline or why you haven’t set robust sales, what is it, is it product level, or is it just better geographic penetrations. Just trying to get a sense of how you’re able to buck [ph] the industry trend here?

Yes. Well, thanks actually, that’s a nice question to ask. I don't want to – it’s tough to say other then, it’s pretty clear from our investment processes and the investment performance. You saw our short-term numbers improve meaningfully. Our affiliates engage very consistently with the institutional marketplace and they are very consistent and disciplined in the process. I think they interview that very discipline processes can generate alpha in the market environment today, but you don’t start a conversation with things turn. You benefit from it because you’ve been having that conversation consistently over the years. I do think we’re in good asset classes. And I do think that the incremental movements we’ve made in terms of building global distribution and going into new markets have been the right markets to turn our attention and gone into. And I do think you're seeing a little bit of a front end of the investments we've made in building new product and seeding new product at affiliates three and four years ago beginning to become harvestable. So, I think it's a combination of factors are being very disciplined in your model, being very consistent in investing in it and building it and then having a benefit when people are prepared to pay attention to it.

Look, I think the other element is that in a purely institutional business the timing of when new sales hit can be chunky, the same way timing of redemptions hit can be chunky. So, I don't think that there is anything that is so much bucking a trend that somehow there some unbelievable secret sauce that’s totally different other than this is an institutional business. And as Peter said, these are flows that are been a long time in the development side and they’ve hit now. And I think if you're looking at sort of pure, more retail comps that’s going to be more of sort of institutional reaction to more of sort of a instantaneous reaction to what's going on. Whereas the flows that this represent is really as Peter said, sort of a build-up over, having the right products for the right clients covering in the effective way and this happens to be the quarter where we were awarded and less have come out.

Okay. Thanks guys. Totally appreciate.

Sure, Bill.

Your next caller is Patrick Davitt of Autonomous. Your next question comes from the line of Craig Siegenthaler of Credit Suisse.

Hey, guys. Good morning. This is [Indiscernible] filling for Craig. Could you please touch on the affiliates that contributed to the positive flows in 4Q? And then if you could what January trends sort of look like and if you’re seeing that more positive momentum continued into 2017?

Yes. We don’t really break down flow by affiliate, never had and kind of never will because we view it as an overall franchise trying to generate flow. In terms of I guess looking forward likewise again as you know we've never really commented on forward-looking flow because as Steve frankly said and answering some of Bill’s questions, because we're building an institutionally driven business and because we deal with such large relationships and accounts, it’s very difficult to provide any meaningful pathway on timing and magnitude, because it’s tough to tell when things will fund and its very is difficult to tell how chunky they might be. Generally, I will share that our sense of the current pipeline is relatively consistent with the way it looked over the last few quarters. We haven't seen it meaningfully diminish or expand, it's a pipeline that we’re comfortable with and it’s holding fairly steady.

Got it. Thanks.

But you know, I think in general obviously on page 11 we had a full year flows and you figure that those same entities are probably contributing on the fourth quarter as well as for the full year.

Our next question comes from the line of Patrick Davitt of Autonomous. Your line is open.

Can you hear me now?

Hi, Patrick.

How it’s going. Thank you. I just have one quick question, actually a couple. On the Landmark guidance, first to the extent there's AUM coming in, is that earning fees immediately or is it coming into AUM and not yet earning fees?

Yes. The way they’re structured, Patrick and that’s a good question. The way these vehicles are structured, when you hold a closing and therefore gathering the commitment, not necessary we call the asset, but confirm the commitment. And there will be sequential closings through this process. You begin collecting fees on the full commitment at that time. So to the extent there is a reported historical change in AUM at Landmark attributable to a new closing. Those are fee earning assets from the date of closing. And there is, yes, Steve can clarify, there’s another important component on this issue.

Yes. From and this is just in general when talking about a fund, the way that it would certainly work when you have funds that have multiple closings, the fees are actually earned back to the date of the initial closing. So that if you had a closing that took place in the third quarter of 2017 you not only would receive the fees going forward from that date, but there would be sort of a retroactive fee collection going back to the closing date – the first closing date of that product. So, as we think about and you think about modeling revenue potential within 2017 there would be some elements that would reflect sort of ketchup in fees back to the end of this year. The other element and this is more of a general senses, when we report flows we basically try to match in absolute terms assets coming in with a collection of those fees. So if there was ever a product for instance where there was a -- where the fee wasn't earned until the asset was actually called, we wouldn't count that asset as a flow until was actually was called and began counting fees, generating fees.

Right.

Great. That answers my question exactly. And then within that theme the guidance that you expect the real pickup in the second half I guess suggest that we’re kind of very early stages of this AUM coming in?

I think that’s right, Patrick, I think that’s right. Yes. And then in the second we’re going to have some ketchup stuff as well, right.

Exactly. And then finally on the, I guess broader kind of new affiliate investment pipeline and/or view just kind of update us, what kind of you’re thinking about that side of the capital used?

Yes, we are, and actually that’s a fair question because we’re pretty diligent in evaluating our capital resources in our liquidity and also the role that strategic acquisitions can continue to make in creating value for the shareholders. We are active in looking at continuing to build the business through strategic acquisitions. We think it can continue to create value. We’ve got a pretty clear view of which segments of the industry we’d like to pursue and we've got a very sharp eye on making sure that we have a view when we find the right next acquisition that we've got a pretty clear view into how we’re going to finance it, and some of will be incremental debt, and then we’re going to be prudent about that. We are not going to over leverage this business. So, if we find the right transaction and then have high degree of comfort in its economic value, I think we'll just explore with the markets the right way for us to issue an instrument that can fund the purchase of it as well.

Thank you.

Yep.

Your next question comes from Andy McLaughlin of KBW. Your line is open.

Hi, everyone. Good morning.

Hey, Andy.

Good morning.

Hey, good morning. Just kind of as a follow-up to the last question. Have any new potential partners you’ve been talking to, are they concerned all about what the Parent plans on doing just in the coming years?

Look, that’s an absolutely fair question and its one of those, I think there's a little [Indiscernible] quote about you know refusing to be a member of any club that would have him. I think that we’re working on building relationships with very good businesses, and these are very smart people. And one of the central questions is who is your ultimate ownership going to be? And we would like some clarity from you on that before we’re really prepared to engage definitively. And then that’s fair and we’re very comfortable with it and the Parents very aware of that fact and they are managing accordingly. So, yeah, I think the short honest answer is that’s the relevant consideration in our discussions with potential new affiliates.

But you know we are continuing to sort of had discussion, build the pipeline, clearly the offering in December was a nice step forward in terms of answering some of those questions. And we’re sort of to moving forward. It’s not a hindrance to us in anyway, but it’s certainly a factor that has to get work through.

But we’re just carrying on with the business and running it.

All right. Great. Thank you. That’s all I had.

Sure.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Disdier of Sandler O'Neill. Your line is open.

Thanks. Hello, and good morning everyone.

Hello. Andrew. How is it going?

I’m doing well, thanks. Yourself?

Good.

Good. So just digging a bit deeper into the flow data, the disclosure that you provide a very transparent, but one question I do have relates to the gross inflows and gross outflows. So I’m just wondering if you could provide any detail around the breakout of A, new accounts and assets added compared to assets contributed by existing accounts? And then B, on the flipside terminated accounts versus net assets withdrawn from existing accounts and if possible how that breakout has trended over time?

Yes. We may have to get back to you on that exact split. Meanwhile I’m looking at on some of the sub-advise – I mean obviously on the sub- advisory side that’s obviously important as well as some of our institutional accounts have definitely -- we know first on the global distribution side that some of the relationships that’s been developed continue to add for those accounts and that was certainly beneficial, but in terms of the broader perspective we don’t tend to have that breakout that hand. Yes. Sorry, Andrew.

And then just switching to performance fees, at the end of last quarter, I guess the disclosure in the Q, you have said its about $50 billion of consolidated AUM that are subject to in terms of fees. And then you got related funds look to be the majority of those related assets. Do you -- consolidated incentive fee earning AUM or held in their..?

I mean, most of that – I mean, obviously Vanguard is the vast majority of that. The rest of it is really less sub-advisory and more just situations where institutional clients have chosen to have a fee schedule that has a slightly lower management fee and some performance component to it. In general I would say the products that tend to have a bit more of that would be sort of emerging markets and then there are couple of products within sort of long shore products within Acadian that have tended to have by their very nature performance fees. You know and that is really spread throughout. If I look those are sort of the two biggest buckets but as I think you’re aware Campbell had performance fees, Coppers rock had had performance fees, TSW has had it, so its sort of – there is some components spread throughout almost all the affiliates. But as I said it’s almost entirely just your traditional institutional where there's a slight sort of plus or minus to the management fee based on how the product is doing relative to a benchmark.

Great. Thank you for taking the questions.

Your next question comes from Michael Cyprys with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. Do you hear me, okay?

Yes, we hear you. How are you? Thanks.

Great. Thanks. Sorry, for any background noise. I was just wondering if you could flush out little on the RFP activity. Just what are some of the biggest opportunities that you're seeing today that you’re competing for. And then also if you could flush out little bit about the competitive environment, what you're see happening, we’re hearing a little bit more fee pressure intensifying within the industry, so just curious what you're – what you’re seeing and how you're competitively responding to that?

Overall I guess if he had – I mean as we sort of have said consistently, our pipeline tends to be in focus on large accounts all the time because we're dealing with building out unintentionally institutional business, so the opportunities we tend to encounter franchise wide tend to be big and lumpy, the question is which ones do you win. What I can’t share with you is I did notice in look at the pipeline. There are couple of interesting and very large sub-advisory relationships where you have the opportunity to be hired by a large platform to take over a very big product that tends to stand out as a big number. What’s tougher to tell is, but its very much a part of our strategy is when you get hired by a platform to be the advisor to a new product they are launching that they're going to distribute and support, how that product itself might grow very efficiently and very effectively over time it becomes very large, but we have clearly seen that in some sub-advisory, advisory mandates we put in place that started small and have grown into multibillion dollar product offering. So we look at both of those very hard. Overall on the fee pressure question, really realistically we're not seeing it as I think we said earlier in the call, our weighted average fee has actually gone up, and I think the reason for that is, our business already manages very large institutional accounts. We are hired for very specific and sophisticated mandates. The fee framework for that mandate is not something that's really subject to lot of negotiation because it's already a well-developed product relationship. And to the extent we are thinking about that issue. I think it also is reflecting the fact that the business that we’re trying to grow and it's reflected in the Landmark acquisition is to continue to build the business into those asset classes on the institutional level that really are going to be driven by active management by alpha generation where you just don't have that kind of commoditization fee pressure issue. I think the fee pressure issue really is real in the retail world and in the commoditize world and we are working very consciously to build an institutional non-commoditized business. Lot of it really comes down to mix issues for us and look if someone buys a managed volatility product that's a lower fee than a you know one does not manage volatility but there's no indication that sort of clients are intentionally moving towards that to say fees or something, right. So what we really find is you're competing for big accounts. Our average weighed fee rates are already quite low relative to the competitors and as they shift there’s really more function of what clients are buying as opposed to people coming back and trying to sort of push down feed.

Okay, great. And then just if I could ask a follow-up, shifting gears to different topic multi-asset, just curious what you're seeing in the channel institutional and sub-advisory in terms of demand for multi-asset and how you’re able to fee set together across your different affiliates?

Yes. That’s actually a pretty timely question, but I’m going to separate it Michael because we look at this very hard. I would characterize your question about sort of doing things across multi-affiliates that in our view falls more into the solutions world. That to me is a retail offering. And we are not going to hire bunch of people and lock them in a windowless room and have them develop these solutions involving all our affiliates because the reality is that’s what the platforms are already doing. We're not going to go in competition with them on that front. These are our business partners who are providing solutions and so to a large degree our sub-advisory strategy is designed to be our participation in that direction in the market where we're providing the Alpha Sleeve to someone else's big platform solution, so that sort of segment one. Segment two on the other hand is something that we consider to be true institutional multi-asset class capability. We think there is demand for that and we actually are actively working on that with one of our affiliate who is best positioned to we believe deliver that and our goal is to be in a position to begin having conversations on that topic kind of later this year. So that piece we are active on and we think there's an opportunity.

Great. Thank you.

Okay.

Great. Thanks.

This concludes our question and answer session. I’d like to turn the conference call back to Peter Bain.