Hello and welcome to the Capital Trust third quarter 2010 results conference call. Before we begin, please be advised that the forward-looking statements contained in this news release are subject to certain risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the success of the company’s debt restructuring, the continued credit performance of the company’s loans and CMBS investments, its asset liability mix, the effectiveness of the company’s hedging strategies, the rate of repayment of the company’s portfolio assets and the impact of these events on the company’s cash flow, as well as other risks indicated from time to time in the company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company assumes no obligation to update or supplement forward-looking statements that become untrue because of subsequent events or circumstances. There will be a Q&A session following the conclusion of this presentation. At this time, I will provide instructions for submitting a question to management. I will now turn the call over to Steve Plavin, CEO of Capital Trust. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us and for your interest in Capital Trust. With me are Geoff Jervis, our Chief Financial Officer, and Tom Ruffing, our Chief Credit Officer and Head of Asset Management. Last night we reported our results for the third quarter and filed our 10-Q. CT reported a net loss of $134.7 million or $6.02 per share. This loss was driven by a $141.8 million of reserves and impairments offset by operating and other income. During the quarter, we recorded $102 million of net loss provisions and valuation allowances in our loan portfolio and $40 million of impairments on securities in OREO. We also added one loan with a book value of $11 million and one security with a book value of $3 million to our loan and security watch list. Geoff will run you through the detailed numbers, but lower property valuation was the primary driver behind the increase in provisions while projected underlying loan losses on junior classes of CMBS and CDOs led to the increased impairments. We are operating in a bifurcated market, where primary assets in major cities values are up significantly. In these markets tenant demand has already began or is anticipated to improve in the near term. For secondary properties and markets, weak local economies provide little near-term hope. New demand generation for space has yet to emerge, and there is little clarity as to what will catalyze these markets and when it will occur. In general, property cash flows remain under intense pressure, substantially below the levels projected in loan origination in 2006 and 2007. Very significant cash flow improvement remains necessary for the full repayment of financings based on those cash flow projections. Many loans from those vintages have being kept afloat by low LIBOR…

Thank you, Steve, and good morning, everyone. As Steve mentioned, last night we reported results for the third quarter, reporting a net loss of $134.7 million or $6.02 per share. The net loss for the quarter was primarily as a result of $141.8 million of credit impairments to the company’s investment portfolio comprised of $95.9 million of net loan loss provisions on seven loans, $35.9 million of security impairments on eight securities, $6 million of valuation allowances on our two loans out for sale and $4 million of impairments on our one real estate out for sale asset. Excluding these impairments a $1.2 million of other items, net operating income was $5.9 million or $0.26 per share for the period. Apart from the impairment activity, the major component of net income was net interest margins, on our portfolio of $8.6 million, up $790,000 from last quarter on a series of one-time events offset by the continued negative impact of asset level non-performance in our portfolio. Other components of operating income were other revenues of $3 million, up $780,000 from the last quarter on a combination of new stabilization management fee revenue from CT Opportunity Partners, increased based management fee income from CT High Grade Partners II as we continued to invest that vehicle and one time incentive management fees from CT Mezzanine Partners III or Fund III as we wrapped up the 2000 (inaudible) Fund during the third quarter. These increased revenues were offset by special servicing fees but despite increase special servicing activity we’re down period to period as a realization of this income inconsistent. Other expenses primarily G&A were $5.1 million, up $640,000 from the prior quarter, driven in part by the distribution to employees and former employees of their share of incentive management fees collected from Fund…

Thank you. Tony, we’ll open up the call for questions please.

(Operator Instructions). Our first question will come from Darryl Kasper with Madison International. Please go ahead. Darryl Kasper – Madison International: Hi this is Darryl. Could you talk through the process of how the replacement financing works or lot of these conversations coming down to the last month or last couple of weeks are is it possible to secure financing at a time like today or is it just not feasible to negotiate today for something that’s so far out?

Well these conversations have been occurring since 2008, sort of beginning of this crisis, I would say that our March 2009 restructuring represented the first act of a restructuring and we continued to talk to all of our lenders. We have a long roto (ph) here obviously with a situation of the company, but there is no commitment from anybody to do so, there is no obvious replacement financing. And much of our time is being spent on trying to find a solution to our March 2011 refinancing. Darryl Kasper – Madison International: Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question will come from Evan Dreyfuss with Talon Asset Management. Please go ahead, your line is open. Evan Dreyfuss – Talon Asset Management: Yes, I just have a quick question, a little bit of a follow-on to the first question. The way I look at this at the moment, your non-VIE assets have been marked down, it looks like $0.40 to $0.45 on the dollar. When we get to March ‘011 and you’re working with both those – all the lenders, is there a mechanism to try to assess what the value really is, and is there a covenant level where if you come up with valuation of $0.50 or $0.55 you need to be higher. What’s the mechanism for them to – other than maturity is there enough assets and time to maybe have those assets come back up and value them to extend as I’m trying to get out other than maturity, is there any other thing that they can say to you in terms of what those assets are marked at?

Well, the maturity in March of 2011, we have no agreement with our lenders. And so there is no provision necessarily that the value is it a certain level based upon reserved value or fair value or any other measure of value that we can require our lenders to do anything. I think that any conversation with any lender whether it be our existing lender or new lenders will be based upon where the asset sits on all senses, fair value on a liquidation basis as well as like one might deemed to be the range of ultimate collectability. Evan Dreyfuss – Talon Asset Management: And then if you get to a point where they say we’d like – we don’t want to extend more, we’d like this collateral you deliver the collateral. Have – has Capital Trust guarantee the senior secured loans and the Repo agreements, is all the cash and the equity in your CDOs and the equity in your management business secured by that as well? Can they basically take your entire company to satisfy those loans if they say what we think the assets are worth (inaudible) 410 or 500 can they take it all of them?

It’s a tiered conversation obviously because you have three tiers of recourse steps. The repurchase agreements which are secured, the senior credit facility which is partially secured and then the junior subordinated notes that you own, that are not collateralized and the most subordinate piece of the capital structure. And so I think that the way it would play out legally I’m clear and I don’t want to speculate too much but the Repo lenders have their collateral and we have a right to repurchase that collateral at a certain price in March of 2011. If we don’t come up with a proceeds necessary to repurchase that collateral then in theory that collateral belongs to them. That represents the vast, almost the entire value of the company. And so there are – the second tier of debt being the unsecured, I’m sorry, being the senior credit facility had some collateral which it belongs to that syndicate and then other than that there really is a de minimis amount of unsecured, of unencumbered collateral that would be available to service any deficiencies at the Repos whatever the deficient claim would be at the unsecured as well. Evan Dreyfuss – Talon Asset Management: But the cash and the other equity any other parts of your business are pledged to the secured line then, or if you had done arrival at the CT get to keep the cash and keep your investment management business?

Well I would say that it’s delineate between CT and the investment management business which is the CTIMCO, a wholly-owned subsidiary, that entity has roughly half the cash in the company. That entity has management contracts as well as home for all the employees and those are separate and distinct. And CTIMCO is not pledged as collateral for any liability. Evan Dreyfuss – Talon Asset Management: Perfect, that’s it. Thank you, for that answers the question. Thank you and good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. At this time we have no further questions.

Thank you everyone for joining.

Thank you. This concludes today’s conference. You may disconnect at any time and have a great day.