Good morning. My name is Melissa, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Fifth Third Bank’s 3Q '17 Earnings 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]. Thank you. Sameer Gokhale, Head of Investor Relations, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Melissa. Good morning and thank you all for joining us. Today, we'll be discussing our financial results for the third quarter of 2017. This discussion may contain certain forward-looking statements about Fifth Third pertaining to our financial condition, results of operations, plans and objectives. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause results to differ materially from historical performance and these statements. We've identified some of these factors in our forward-looking cautionary statement at the end of our earnings release and in other materials, and we encourage you to review them. Fifth Third undertakes no obligation to and would not expect to update any such forward-looking statements after the date of this call. Additionally, reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures we reference during today's conference call are included in our earnings release along with other information regarding the use of non-GAAP financial measures. A copy of our most recent quarterly earnings release can be accessed by the public in the Investor Relations section of our corporate Web site, www.53.com. This morning, I'm joined on the call by our President and CEO, Greg Carmichael; CFO, Tayfun Tuzun; Chief Operating Officer, Lars Anderson; Head of Commercial Bank, Richard Stein; and Treasurer, Jamie Leonard. Following prepared remarks by Greg and Tayfun, we will open the call up for questions. Let me turn the call over now to Greg for his comments.

Thanks, Sameer, and thank all of you for joining us this morning. As you’ll see in our results, we reported third quarter 2017 net income available to common shareholders of $999 million and EPS of $1.35. Our reported EPS included a net benefit of $0.87 from a few significant items including our August Vantiv share sale. Our results for the quarter were strong, reflect the progress we continue to make for our long-term financial targets by strengthening our balance sheet, building profitable relationships and returning excess capital to our shareholders. Before discussing highlights of the quarter, I’d like to make a few observations about the broader macroeconomic environment. Our commercial clients remain cautiously optimistic about their business expansion opportunities. Consumer confidence, consumer spending and the overall labor markets continue to be strong. But our customers like to gain more clarity to the direction of the U.S. economy. Although U.S. GDP growth picked up in the second quarter, it is unclear where this acceleration will continue. The Fed currently forecast U.S. GDP growth of approximately 2% for 2018, which is still relatively tepid. Many of our clients also continue to take a wait-and-see approach for cash reform and other administration’s public pro-growth policies. Additionally, this is one of the longest periods of economic expansion for the U.S. Fiscal stimulus may help extend this expansion but is unclear how much faster the economy will growth from the current run rate given the length of this cycle. Lastly, the Fed’s decision to reduce the size of its balance sheet could put some pressure on market liquidity in interest rates. While some of the economic indicators are positive, there is still uncertainty about how much faster the economy can grow given the factors I just mentioned. Our results continue to demonstrate that we are…

Thanks, Greg. Good morning and thank you for joining us. Let’s move to the financial summary on Slide 4 of the presentation. As Greg mentioned, during the quarter our NIM expansion, continued focus on disciplined expense management, stable credit quality and efficient capital management, all reflected our commitment to driving improved financial performance and shareholder returns. Relative to last year’s third quarter, our net interest margin was up 19 basis points, NII was up 7%, noninterest expenses were flat and total net charge-offs were 36% lower, so core revenues were 3% higher. These positive results were accompanied by a 42 basis point increase in our common equity Tier 1 ratio and a 7% reduction in shares outstanding. Although some of our balance sheet decisions had a negative impact on loan growth over the past year, the benefits of these strategic actions are apparent in our financial results and will continue to have a positive impact on shareholder returns in coming years. Reported results were materially impacted by our Vantiv share sale during the quarter which boosted pre-tax income by over $1 billion. We also recognized a $47 million charge as a reduction to noninterest income associated with the Visa swap. The charge is attributable to litigation developments during the quarter and to the increase in Visa share price. Pre-provision net revenue adjusted for items disclosed in our presentation increased 2% sequentially and 6% year-over-year. Our focus on prudent expense management enabled us to drive positive operating leverage on a year-over-year basis. We expect to achieve positive operating leverage again next quarter and for the full year of 2017. The environment continues to be challenging in commercial lending, whether it is the uncertainty related to tax policy and its impact on capital investments or the ongoing back and forth related to…

Thanks, Tayfun. Before we start Q&A, as a courtesy to others, we ask that you limit yourself to one question and a follow up and then return to the queue if you have additional questions. We will do our best to answer as many questions as possible in the time we have this morning. During the question-and-answer period, please provide your name and that of your firm to the operator. Melissa, please open the call up to questions.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from the line of Ken Usdin from Jefferies. Your line is open.

Thanks very much, guys. I actually wanted to ask on your comments about the NII trajectory. You said, Tayfun, that the fourth quarter should be kind of flattish and then you’d expect to be able to keep that flattish, ex-rates. Was that what you said? So could you just walk us through kind of how you’re expecting to grow NII? What are the drivers of future NII, ex-rates? And then the follow on would just be what incremental rates due from here? Thanks.

Yes, the reason why I provided that color, Ken, is there’s a lot of interest obviously from the investor community to understand NII dynamics in the absence of rates. So what we are projecting is even if the Fed does not have any rate increases left, we do believe that we will be able to maintain a stable NIM and NII. And obviously loan growth with a stable NIM, loan growth will be the factor that influences NII. We clearly still expect widening NIM and growth in NII resulting solely from Fed’s rate increases, but even in the absence we’re not seeing an erosion in our expected numbers.

Okay. And then just a follow up on the loan point then. At what point do you expect to be kind of clear of incremental either C&I exits or get to a comfort point with some of the portfolios that you’ve been slowing the growth? So I guess at what point do we get kind of a better base to kind of start to grow back off of?

Ken, this is Greg. What we’ve communicated is by the end of this year this optimization program is over and there’s more business as usual. So we talked about 5 billion for the last couple of years, 1.5 billion of that this year. We’re pretty much through that, a little bit left in the fourth quarter and then we’re done with the optimization efforts. So you could expect us going forward of a more stable base.

The one color that I would add to that is Greg’s comments relate to the commercial loans but we will see continued reduction in auto loans because our originations will still continue to be under our long-term trends. But we expect obviously with added consumer loans in other line items to make up for that reduction in auto loan outstanding.

Got it. Okay. Thanks a lot.

Your next question comes from Geoffrey Elliott from Autonomous Research. Your line is open.

Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. On the noninterest income, I know there are a couple of details you called out around lease residual gains and so on. But if you look at the year-on-year comparison; service charges down 3% year-on-year, corporate banking revenues down 9% year-on-year, wealth is up 1%. It doesn’t feel like there’s a lot of growth there. Can you maybe give us a kind of update on the initiatives you’ve been running to grow fees, where you feel like things are working, where you feel like there’s more to do? And then some thoughts on how we should look at noninterest income going forward, what you can do to get growth back into positive territory again?

Great. Thanks, Geoffrey. I’m going to make some general comments and I’m going to turn it over to Lars for his perspectives as well. So in general, clearly a number of our initiatives going forward are focused on fee income generation. That includes payment processing. It includes mortgage banking. It includes capital markets. When you look at the year-over-year comparisons, you also need to keep in mind that especially in commercial related line items such as treasury management and such as capital markets, we are seeing some impact of the exits that Greg detailed over the last 24 months. So I think Lars is going to give you some color on the underlying strength on the commercial side. We are also as you know focusing on growth in wealth management through either acquisitions or expanded sales force. There’s insurance acquisitions going on. So as we look forward, there are a number of line items that we would hope to discuss with you in December to support stronger fee growth. Lars, any sort of specific color?

Yes. So maybe speaking to corporate banking fees in particular, Geoffrey, a couple of things. As Tayfun had pointed out, that prior period comparison and what those prudent leasing gains as we actively manage that leasing portfolio is really an important part of that strategy. So you really do have to kind of look a little deeper into it. And I would tell you I business lending fees on a year-over-year basis were up about 2% and that’s why we executed on our balance sheet optimization. So we continue to feel good about those business lending fees and the opportunity to accelerate those as we see the overall lending market grow. But in particular, corporate banking fees are – over 60% of that is capital markets. You know what is going on in the FICC kind of segment this year and the pressure there. But we continue to make investments in our FICC business in replatforming that business to enhance the client experience. That’s going to be rolling out in the coming quarters. But despite that, we’ve stayed very close to our client because we knew, as Fed tightening became closer, that we would see clients begin to take action on a linked quarter basis. Actually our FICC business was up 13%. Investment banking was up 22% on a linked quarter basis. Again, I’ve shared with you that we’ve continued to invest in our loan syndication, capital, our equity and corporate bond, underwriting capabilities, our M&A advisory very strong. That 22% gives us an 18% linked quarter growth overall in capital markets. So we’re going to position ourselves with our clients to capture that. I think we’ve got the right products for the right lines of business and in both our industry verticals and core middle market to continue to accelerate that in the future, albeit that this is a variable area of our noninterest income and the overall economic environment will influence it.

Got it. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Scott Siefers from Sandler O’Neill + Partners. Your line is open.

Good morning, guys. I was just curious on the expense base, just trying to figure out sort of the puts and takes in that you look at sort of year-over-year the expense growth has certainly been pretty well controlled but it looks like they’re going to be up in the fourth quarter and we will be up a couple of percent from when you first announced the North Star initiative. So I guess I’m just wondering given how large North Star is just in terms of dollars, would there be a point where we would see absolute declines in the cost base or should we be thinking about it despite the sizable dollar values involved as sort of offsetting nature growth in the expense base?

Yes, I think so obviously I don’t know how many quarters in a row now, but we have done better than we guided. We continue to focus both on headcount expenses as well as expenses in other line items. There is some increase into the fourth quarter somewhat seasonal in some of the operation areas given the pickup towards the end of the year, some increase in IT expenses related to the timing of the projects coming on line. Our goal is to clearly – first and foremost is to achieve positive operating leverage. The ability to lower expenses will depend upon the investments that are needed to boost our revenue growth opportunities. And we’re not necessarily looking at expense management solely by itself but at how it relates to future growth opportunities. Having said that, it is clearly our goal to maintain a low level of expense growth in order to also achieve – make sure that we achieve operating leverage in this environment which continues to be challenging with respect to revenue growth opportunities. So the company is very focused. We will share more obviously about 2018 with you in December and in our upcoming fourth quarter earnings release in January.

Okay. Thank you. And then, Tayfun, I just want to make sure I understand the tax guidance correctly, the 29 to 30 in the fourth quarter. I think in your prepared comments, you kind of implied that’s simply a fourth quarter event. That’s just not the new run rate we should be thinking about in 2018?

That is correct. It’s simply a fourth quarter impact. And let me give you maybe a little bit more of a color there. As you can see on the first page of our earnings release, the after-tax impact – after-tax gain on Vantiv share is $679 million this quarter. If you include the fourth quarter impact on our tax rate, that ultimate resulting after-tax gain is going to be around $657 million, $658 million which is the marginal increase – which leads to the marginal increase in our tax rate. And that year-ending after-tax of $657 million, $658 million in Vantiv is very close to what we disclosed in September at Barclays Conference. So that’s a one-time only tax rate increase that will not show up again in 2018.

Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from Saul Martinez from UBS. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning, guys. A couple of questions. First, you mentioned that the exiting of commercial relationships has kind of run its course and presumably the runoff on the auto books starts to lessen a bit, albeit it’s going to be there for a little bit. As we think about loan growth going forward beyond 2017, how do you think about how quickly you can grow and are there opportunities to gain share and how do you think about what could be sort of a more normalized level for loan growth being your different portfolios?

Good question. As we look forward to 2018, Tayfun has made some prior comments and we’ll be sharing a little bit more about that in December at the Investor Conference. But we’re looking obviously to grow our commercial portfolio at a rate that would be around nominal GDP plus. We obviously are very focused on moving market share. We’re positioning our businesses to have the capabilities and the talent to frankly execute on that. We continue to build out our industry verticals, which has been a very successful strategy for us. We’re also, as Greg mentioned earlier, we’re focused on also expanding some of our middle market banking operations and markets in which we’ve been operating in the past through verticals and corporate banking around the country. So I believe that with the things that we’ve been investing in and our payments, treasury management, capital markets, we really do have an advantage as we head into the coming quarters. Obviously, the overall economic environment is going to have an impact on it. Our clients, we continue to hear from them. They are more optimistic today I would tell you than they were six months ago. However, there is still a lot of commerce that’s on the sideline. It’s very ready to go, but they need clarity and at that point I think that we can really accelerate the growth.

The only thing I would add to Lars’ comments on the consumer side, credit card has been an area of focus for the organization. You see the slight increase this quarter. We expect that to continue onto next year with the investments we’ve made both in people and products in this space. In addition to that, unsecured lending is also another bright spot in our partnership with GreenSky, more originated there and the quality of that relationship, we’re very pleased with. In addition to that, we expect to continue to grow consumer mortgages as we rollout our new platform that’s rolling in at course [ph] already, but we’ll roll in to our retail and direct channels later this year. So we feel confident that we can continue to grow roughly, as Lars said, on low GDP levels.

That’s helpful. And if you can’t kick-start loan growth and start to grow closer to nominal GDP plus, what does that mean for deposit cost pressure? Does it – your LTR moved up a little bit. You’re at 90% plus. Obviously rates are moving up. How do you think about deposit betas in an environment where we do start to see a little bit more growth?

This is Jamie. As Tayfun mentioned in his prepared remarks, betas have been pretty benign. We’re at about 18% cycle to-date but we’re certainly expecting betas to increase the June move during the quarter was at 20 beta, but we think it will be a 30 beta by the end of the year and a December move we’re modeling in the mid-40 range. So we certainly expect competition to pick up as the Fed continues to hike rates. In terms of deposits, they were down sequentially about 900 million. There was some consumer seasonality softness combined with an ongoing trend on the commercial side that we saw in the second quarter that continued into the third quarter and that’s really driven by a few factors. One, there are certain segments where liquidity is being deployed for working capital or other seasonal needs such as in CRE and pub funds. Also, we’ve seen the large corporate customer base that currently has excess liquidity begin to seek alternative investment options or seek higher deposit rates and that’s a phenomenon where we’re keeping the customer but we lose those excess deposits, because we’re unwilling to match those overly aggressive rates. I think one good data point back to your LCR comment; within our LCR calculation, our nonoperational deposit categories are where we have had the runoff. It’s down about 1.6 billion whereas our operational deposits continue to increase and that’s really as we look forward where we expect to be funding this loan growth in 2018 has continued improvement in the commercial deposit gathering space driven by strong TM client acquisition.

Having said all of that, just keep in mind we’re not giving 2018 guidance, we’re not giving guidance on loan growth in 2018 at those levels. So I just want to caution you.

Okay. That’s very helpful. Thanks, guys.

Your next question comes from Peter Winter from Wedbush. Your line is open.

Good morning.

Hi, Peter.

I was wondering, can you just talk about some of the factors puts and takes that keeps the margin stable without a rate hike?

The biggest impact, Peter, is the decision that we made two years ago to reallocate capital away from lower returning assets into higher returning assets, whether it’s in autos or whether it’s in C&I. The churn of that capital into higher returning assets is clearly a defense mechanism that has worked well for us. At the same time, we are also seeing very healthy and stable origination coupon. Now that doesn’t mean necessarily that spreads are not under pressure and also the betas on deposits so far have fared below our expected levels. But in general overall as we guide for stable NII and stable NIM, this continued churn away from lower returning assets into higher returning assets whether it’s from auto to secured, unsecured lending or within commercial to better relationships is helping us.

Great. And just one quick follow up. I don’t know if you’ve said it but how much was the auto securitization at the end of the quarter and was there any gain from it in the third quarter?

The auto securitization was on balance sheet it was $1 billion transaction where we held one of the tranches. So it provided 750 million of proceeds but simply was a funding mechanism, no gain or loss on that transaction.

Okay. Thanks very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Ken Zerbe from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks. Just had another follow-up question on the deposit side. I hear what you’re saying but we still see the core deposits coming down. What’s the launch from strategy there? Should your deposit beta be higher? Should you be paying up more to retain some of those deposits or even grow your operational deposits to fund balance sheet growth? I’m just kind of trying to get a sense of how you – where you want deposit growth to be over the next, say, few quarters?

Ken, it’s Jamie. We definitely want deposit growth but we want it in the right categories. And if you look year-over-year, our commercial space we’re down 2 billion in deposits and we’re up 2 billion in the consumer side. And so we’re definitely focused on growing our households and we’ve been very successful in doing that on the consumer side. On the commercial side, we’ve allowed deposit balances to run down just simply from the economics where we have the flexibility when faced with aggressive deposit pricing levels to let deposits run off and fund it through the FHLB. So over time, in '16 and '17, that’s allowed us to experience a lower beta. We still have significant amount of flexibility and contingent liquidity to do so; however, we are focused on growing commercial operational deposits going forward.

So I guess that kind of leads into the second part though, does there come a point where deposit betas don’t price gradually? Where you say, okay, we’re done with the commercial runoff, we actually need the commercial deposits and therefore we see a much more meaningful step up in your deposit betas that you try to stabilize that portfolio?

I think it’s possible that that would happen but not at the type of Fed increases we’re expecting which are pretty low step-ups from the Fed. We’re just not at that point yet.

All right, great. Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from John Pancari from Evercore ISI. Your line is open.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Back to the loan growth, I heard that the exiting of the commercial relationships has pretty much run its course at the end of next quarter. Can you just remind us of the Shared National Credit portfolio, was is the size of that as of today and was that part of any of the intentional runoff?

This is Lars. Let me just take that question. To give you a little bit of background on that, we had a number of years ago an increase in the Shared National Credit portfolio in particular consistent with the build out of some of our industry verticals which frankly really benefitted us in a large way. However, Shared National Credits, it’s not a line of business. It is just an outcome of our business strategy. If you look at our SNC portfolio, it’s been fairly stable in that 50%, 51% type range over a number of quarters now. It’s stabilized as we continue to focus even more on our middle markets portfolio. And I would remind you of this too. Our Shared National Credit portfolio is underwritten with the same risk team to the same standard, held to the same pricing discipline, same expectations in terms of risk profile. In fact, if you look at the asset quality of that portfolio today, you would see that it largely matches our overall commercial portfolio the same thing in terms of the overall returns. And we’re really pleased with what we’ve been able to drive there as we have executed on our balance sheet optimization. There has been a churn in that Shared National Credit portfolio today. About 80% of those Shared National Credit relationships have multiple products with us which is very high. The other 20% frankly our newer relationships, ones that we are actively building out and deepening client relationships as we bring to them strategic options in treasury management, more sophisticated products that we’re investing in. So we feel good about our strategy there. But I wouldn’t expect that that would grow significantly in the future in particular as we invest in our core middle market franchise even more on a go-forward basis.

The only thing I’ll also add to Lars’ comments is our SNC criticized assets are lower than our overall commercial in general. So they performed extremely well and have even through the cycle performed well for us.

Okay. And I know you mentioned that it shouldn’t grow, but you think that at the current level that 50% to 51% range I guess with that 25% to 30% of total loans that that’s pretty much where it’s going to stay?

Yes, it’s hard to say quarter-to-quarter where things will go depending upon the overall economic environment. But our longer term goal would be for that to be a smaller portion of our overall balance sheet. As I said before, we’re putting a lot into our core middle market business banking focus and we would expect to be accelerating the growth of that in the future.

Okay. And then one more follow up on that. What is the average yield of your Shared National Credits? And then separately what percentage of them are you lead arranger? Thanks.

We are not disclosing the specific yields in sub-portfolios and clearly where we are the lead arranger, that’s a smaller percentage of the total.

Yes, again I would just – I’d reinforce that 80% of that Shared National Credit portfolio that we have multiple products. These are relationships and that’s what we continue to focus on building out moving from just a provider of our balance sheet to true relationships, supporting our verticals and some of our larger core middle market clients. That’s what it’s about.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Gerard Cassidy from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hi. This is actually Steve Duong in for Gerard. Thanks for taking our call. A question on your CET1 ratio. You’re at 10.5 today consistent with the prior quarter even after a pretty large buyback. Is there a target CET1 level that you’re looking to get to? And if so, what is the payout level do you think you need to reach that target?

Obviously in the very near term, our CCAR results and guidance dictates where that capital is. In general, we’ve been targeting a 10% type level and we still have three quarters ahead of us in terms of adding more to our buybacks. Over the long term, that target potentially may change. Our peers clearly are talking more about a 9 handle with respect to their capital ratios. And I think roughly 50 basis point type of reduction in capital would equate to about – if I’m not mistaken a $500 million, $600 million type of additional buyback if we do chose to go there immediately. We clearly believe that the risk profile of our balance sheet and the business composition would dictate a lower capital ratio than what we are carrying today; whether it’s 9%, 9.5%. Time will show.

Great. Thank you. And just a follow-up question on the technology side. You guys mentioned about your innovation center. As far philosophically, where are you most focused in on the technology development more on the client-facing side or are you more on the backend, or what’s your philosophy on it?

We see the digital transformation really impacting both ends of the back office or for continued optimization which I think we’ve done a nice job of. But there’s opportunities around artificial intelligence, we’re biased, that we’re looking at right now to more streamline our processes and reduce our overall cost which we expect to achieve. So that’s a focus. In addition, our client-facing side of the house would be our advancements in our mobile application, our Web platform and the investments we’re making and payments to help our commercial customers automate their back office. We’ll continue to see that. And also around the distribution channels, how we touch our customers, whether the partnership with GreenSky, as we mentioned before, ApplePie, the new partnership we’ve just established with NRT Sightline is another example of that. So we’ll continue to make those investments on both sides. Once again, it gets back to the return and the value we create for our commercial customers and consumer customers and our shareholders.

Great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Terry McEvoy from Stephens. Your line is open.

Hi. Thanks. Good morning. Earlier in the call you mentioned international banks being more competitive as it relates to deposits. Is that something new that has emerged over the last quarter? And would you say it’s in market retail consumer competition or more on the national if not international businesses that you operate?

It’s not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on definitely over the past year since the Fed really began increasing rates and it’s definitely on the commercial side you’re seeing and plus types of pricing from FBOs.

And then just a follow up to John’s question, could you substitute leverage lending for the SNC portfolio? Was the planned reduction in commercial centered at all on those loans and I’m not sure if you disclosed the size of that portfolio today?

You’re asking about the size of the leverage loan portfolio?

That’s correct.

It’s been – for a number of quarters now it’s been going down. It is currently – we don’t typically disclose it, but we’ve seen now over the last two years it’s fairly significant for us on our leverage lending --

Terry to your question, that was part of our optimization efforts over the last couple of years, leverage loans.

Which interestingly enough actually was a headwind with respect to spreads and margins. So our ability to stabilize NII and NIM in light of the reduction in our leverage lending portfolio also points to a pretty decent strength in the way we manage this.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Vivek Juneja from JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hi, Tayfun and Greg, a couple of questions for you guys. One is the CET1, I want to go back to that. So why not lower – so why 10% if I heard that correctly? I know you said each 50 basis point would do this, but why not lower given what you’ve done? Is there something that’s holding you back? Are there other plans for which you’re trying to hold on to the capital?

Vivek, we need to clearly make sure that we watch where the industry is going. There’s a pure regulatory aspect of this. In the last CCAR, they enabled us to be a bit more flexible with respect to our capital return to our shareholders. But we still are cognizant of that additional dimension of where the peer group is. We are currently right in the middle, maybe a little bit above the middle range of the distribution of our peers. There is nothing on our balance sheet that suggest that we need to keep a 10% plus capital, but we would like to make sure that the progression to a lower range is in line with the way our peer group moves their capital as well. So that’s really the factor that dictates, because ultimately when you think about CCAR, it’s a group exercise. Yes, there is idiosyncratic impact of one’s balance sheet and income statement, but when the Fed looks at it, they look at it as a group and we cannot ignore where the peers are. And also the other piece is in terms of our preferred bucket, we still have room of about $400 million to $500 million in additional preferred issuance. So as we think about the composition of capital, that is also a factor.

Okay. Thanks. One more small question and maybe this goes to Lars. On leasing residual gains, did I hear you right? You said they are – you’ve taken some gains. Are they to run at this lower run rate, or is that – or was this just a blip this quarter, because it’s something that can be episodic?

It really is episodic. We don’t necessarily have a plan for that line item. It depends on where the portfolio is, where asset values are. We don’t necessarily try to maximize residual gains. And last quarter [indiscernible] strong quarter, so the comparisons for last quarter gets a bit weaker.

Yes, and we just have a very robust process where we’re viewing and actively managing that portfolio and we’re taking those gains where we think is appropriate.

Okay, got it. Thank you.

There are no further questions at this time. Mr. Gokhale, I’ll turn the call back over to you.

Thank you, Melissa. And thank you all for your interest in Fifth Third Bank. If you have any follow-up questions, please contact the Investor Relations department and we will be happy to assist you.

Thank you. This does conclude today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.