Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Fourth Quarter and Year End 2008 IntercontinentalExchange Earnings Conference Call. This call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today's call, Ms. Kelly Loeffler, Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. Please proceed.

Good morning to obtain a copy of the company's fourth quarter and year end earnings release and presentation please visit the investor section of our website at theice.com. These items will be archived and our call will be available for replay. Before we begin you should be aware that our comments may contain forward-looking statements, that represent our current judgment, and are subject to various risks, assumptions, and uncertainties, as outlined in the company's filings with the SEC. Including our Form 10-K that we expect to file this week. For a description of the risks that could cause our results to differ materially from those that are described from the forward-looking statements. Please refer to these filings. Actual results may differ materially from those that are expressed or anticipated in any forward-looking statement. We will also discuss adjusted net income adjusted earnings per common share, adjusted EBITDA and adjusted operating expenses. These are non-GAAP financial measures that exclude certain non-operating charges that we believe are not reflective of our normal operating performance. A reconciliation of adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per common share to the equivalent GAAP results an explanation of why we deem these non-GAAP measures meaningful appear on our press release and earnings presentation. The reconciliation of adjusted EBITDA and adjusted operating expenses to the equivalent GAAP results and an explanation of why we deem these non-GAAP measures meaningful appear in our presentation. With us today are our Chairman and CEO, Jeff Sprecher, Scott Hill, Chief Financial Officer, and Chuck Vice, President and Chief Operating Officer. At the conclusion of the prepared remarks, we will take your questions. I will now turn the call over to, Scott.

Thanks, Kelly and thanks to everyone for joining us this morning. We are pleased to report solid fourth quarter results capping off a strong year despite a challenging economic environment. We delivered our fourth consecutive year of record consolidated revenue net income and cash flow. In addition to record financial performance ICE accomplished each of the strategic objectives we established in 2008. These initiatives included achieving integration and synergies related to our acquired businesses. The continued evolution of our technology infrastructure the launch ICE Clear Europe, the transition of Russell Index Futures and new strategic acquisitions. During 4Q08 and for the fourth consecutive quarter more than $100 million contracts were traded in ICE's marketplace was roping in the highest quarterly revenues in our history. We also established our eighth consecutive record quarter in our Market Data segment. We believe that these significant accomplishments particular amid the challenging operating environment meets to our focus on winning customer needs and executing on innovative strategies. Let's turn to slide 4 and review our fourth quarter performance. ICE's consolidated revenues of $207 million rose 30% over the last year's fourth quarter. Consolidated operating income was $97 million and our operating margin was 47%. Excluding a $16 million non-cash charge related to our investment in NCDEX, non-GAAP net income was $60 million and earnings per share were $0.82. You may recall that in the fourth quarter of 2006 we invested $37 million or an 8% stake in the National Commodities and Derivatives Exchange or NCDEX in India. Given the change in valuations for publicly traded exchanges and the possibility that we like other investors maybe required to reduce our stake to 5% due to recently enacted Indian law, we believe that it was prudent to reduce the carrying value of our investment to $21 million.…

Thank you, Scott, and good morning, everyone. There are number of initiatives underway at ICE. So I want to take a few minutes to describe these to you with an update. First, I would like address the market environment in which ICE operates today. I will also talk about our core over the counter in futures markets, and finally I will discuss our clearing initiatives which include our efforts in the credit default swaps market. It's clear that the global recession has impact on businesses and markets will continue to occupy headline or much of 2009. Over the past 18 months market participants have been faced with extreme levels of market volatility, reduced access to capital, and a contracting global economy. Virtually every firm has been impacted in some way which has increased the level of risk conversion and driven the focus on capital preservation. Amid this financial backdrop however, ICE has continued to execute on our strategic plans which include delivering solutions that can support the recovery of the markets. While the breadth of today's financial turmoil is unprecedented ICE has experienced in addressing a difficult environment. Following the collapse of Enron we saw significant decline in credit and market liquidity within the broad energy market and as a result extended decline in OTC Energy trading. This came at a time when energy was our only business line. ICE was able to successfully weather the downturn in energy volumes and we actually created solutions such as OTC clearing that significantly aided recovery not only for our business but for the market as a whole. In this downturn while we have not seen the same dislocation in our energy markets we are clearly seeing it in other market segments, and are taking the same solutions-oriented approach. By leveraging the assets…

Thank you. (Operator Instruction) We will go Rich Repetto of Sandler O'Neill. Richard Repetto - Sandler O'Neill & Partners: Good morning, Jeff and Scott.

Good morning, Rich.

Good morning, Rich. Richard Repetto - Sandler O'Neill & Partners: I guess first thanks for the transparency on the OTC commissions. I guess my first question would be just to clarify there was this articles about how Brent market share in the OTC business had clear port which is growing very well. Is the Brent business that they are doing is that just on new business taken from banks this was not out there before in the OTC in the Exchange OTC market?

Thanks for the question, Rich. First of all, I think you are aware that we are the home for the Brent crude oil futures market and in fact there is the cash settled market that settles on the index that our colleagues here at ICE provide. Just to put in context, yesterday we traded electronically 323,000 Brent futures contracts. Our competitor traded 158 contracts. In other words we have far more than 99% market share of traded Brent futures. We do not consider market share to be something called open interest that's an inventory number and the amount of open interest that is being referred to we traded in one day yesterday. So, we do not get paid for warehousing positions in a clearing house, we get paid on our revenue model which is a per transaction fee and is highly sensitive to the velocity of trading. So, we have focused our OTC clearing work on trying to roll out first new products that we think will have velocity and will create an annuity. So that when you look at our cleared volumes and think about forward looking view of the company that you can see revenue and earnings growth. With respect to the open interest that you are referring to market share I think is an unfair comparison we do not have many of those products available for clearing. And in fact as I am alluding to they are not our highest priorities in terms of rolling out new products. Warehousing low velocity long dated derivates on behalf of the industry is a very important thing but in terms of prioritizing on ICE it's not where we believe that we will able to grow revenues. Richard Repetto - Sandler O'Neill & Partners: That's very helpful. And my one follow-up would be just more on Creditex, all the feedback is that the market is like you said in front of the regulatory and anticipated changes has slowed and I was just trying to see of the headcount, where does the run rate maybe the EBITDA margin of Creditex I know it was 25% initially and on the headcount reductions, a bunch targeted at Creditex or not?

Yeah, with regards to the headcount reductions, you may recall that when we announced the Creditex transaction. We anticipated synergies in the range of $9 million to $14 million half of which we though it would come from expense. So if you look 80% to 90% of the headcount reductions we will take in the first quarter relate to Creditex and we will actually deliver somewhere between $7 million and $10 million of expense synergies at Creditex on an annualized basis. So as opposed to the original guidance the $5 million to $7 million will be closer to $7 million to $10 million for that business. It's worth noting that in the fourth quarter on a cash basis the Creditex business is actually neutral to us and we still think in the back half of '09, we could get to cash accretion and as we look to our previous guidance overall GAAP accretion was within 18 months. Richard Repetto - Sandler O'Neill & Partners: Okay. Congrats on the solid quarter guys.

Thank you.

We are going to Alex Kramm of Barclays Capital.

Good morning, just want to comeback to the OTC business and digging a little deeper, you obviously gave a little bit of color here of January and February. But can you maybe slice us down a little bit I mean when talking to some of the market participants in particular the commercial participants sounds like people are not really that willing to hedge these days given where natural gas prices are but obviously there a lot of other things going on, you have benefited from the internalization of clearing, you have exclusivity of some of the newer product and new products that you are introducing. So, is this, is the base business growing as well versus all new additional thing that are growing this January February volumes?

That’s a good question, I think you actually have a very good perspective on what’s going on. And it’s very, very hard for us to thread the needle as to specifically what trend is driving growth. But it is fair to say that many of the prices of the energy commodities that we trade in the OTC space are at very, very low prices. And often times people have the view that they are going to remain low, it causes people to back away from hedging. And there have been a number of stories written recently for example that some of the airlines that were very, very hedged on jet fuel going into 2008, today are almost unhedged. So we have actually been quiet pleased with the results of OTC Energy trading beginning in January and February, because it has dramatically increased from December and it does seem to reflect underneath that the idea that people have started the New Year with the fresh view and are starting to put positions on and take a view about the longer-term trends in energy. I think by the way we see a similar trend in agriculture as well with people going unhedged. And our sense is that that is not sustainable. The good news there is that we do not believe customers have left our markets, we believe they are still in our markets, we believe they just backed away their hedging particularly in the fourth quarter of last year and are starting to take a fresh view. I mentioned in our prepared remarks, we have some anecdotal evidence that people are feeling better about the credit worthiness that they need in order to finance hedge positions and that we are starting to see early signs of that activity. We certainly are not hearing anecdotally from our customers the sense of gloom and doom like we were in the fourth quarter, particularly in December where it almost seems like traders threw up their hands and just said I'm tired of the year and I'm going to go home.

Alright, I got it. And then let me just shift to the CDS platform here. Now, do you think you are going to have this running very soon in the first quarter perhaps, now are you able to share any sort of pricing methodologies with us at this point, I mean you have a competitor out there that has a platform running. They actually gave their pricing although there is not really any volume there yet. And when talking to some industry participants its sounds like you communicated something in I want to say 0.05 basis points a notional value preside. So can you comment on these levels and how are you thinking about pricing in general?

Alex, this is Scott. I just said in the prepared remark we have not announced any specifics with regards to pricing, when we do close the deal and open the Clearing House we will provide additional guidance and update. So there is not really any comments we can provide at this time.

Okay, I guess I have to try. Thank you.

We will go to Ken Worthington of JPMorgan.

Hi. Good morning. First there is a direct consortium bid to acquire LCH ClearNet. What do you think the impact is on your ability to offer clearing services for new OTC products if this acquisitions goes through, I guess, does it have an impact on your outlook for those growth opportunities?

That’s a good question. I think you particularly are well versed in this area and are probably aware that there has been a working group related to capital markets that has been responding particularly to demands by the New York fed on how to improve transparency and counter party credit in the broad derivatives space. And that in writing a large group of market participants had indicated sometime back that the view was that interest rate swaps would be cleared through LCH ClearNet expanding on the current swaps clear offering that is there. And I think what you are seeing in terms of the pension that's going on around the ownership of LCH ClearNet is getting prepared to meet the commitment that group of industry participants made. And I said precisely recently that right now LCH ClearNet is owned by group of banks and the DTCC which has made an offer is owned by group of banks and this new consortium is a group of bank. So, it's largely the same market participants, but what's going on is trying to get the right syndication of market participants and right of boarding governance structure and forward looking view of how to roll out that platform. So, anyway with respect to the ICE, we are very, very interested in acquiring the clearing corporation. I will tell you that the reason it has not happened yet is we are only interested in acquiring the clearing corporation. If it has a license to be able to clear CDS trade, so it's closing is tied to our plan of regulatory approval. But the reason we like to own it is the platforms that are in there have really been designed for derivatives clearing and the workflow processes that exist around are very much tied to the way the industry right now is settling a broad range of derivatives. So, we do view our footprint as an opportunity to expand. I think we benefit from the fact that there is lot of uncertainty right now about the exactly how LCH is going to be owned and that may play out for sometime and thereby creating opportunities.

All right. Thank you, and follow up ICE Clear Europe, I know there is a lot of moving parts can you tell us how much it contributed or even approximately how much it contributed to fourth quarter results?

The only thing I can do point back to our rate per contract which is as you saw as we added the clearing revenue in, it went steadily up from October to November and then closed the year at 142 in December and then 154 in January on a rolling three months basis that's the best indication I can give you of the impact that clearing is having because we are not going to break the execution in the clearing out separately.

Okay, I think there was one part, I want to get the rest. Thank you.

Thank you.

We’ll go next to Howard Chen of Credit Suisse.

Good morning everyone.

Good morning.

Thanks for the color at this morning. Aside from the headcount reductions, Scott can you discuss what type of variable expense leverage you have particularly with respect to the Creditex franchise, how many of those broker contracts are locked in versus variable vis-à-vis activity levels as we go through and uncertain '09?

Yes, Howard for competitive reasons I really would not want to go into the specifics of our broker contract. What I would tell you is that embedded in the headcount reductions we announced this morning, included in that is about 20% broker reduction. We have got a terrific leadership team that's running the broker desk, at Creditex and that team has done a very good job at looking at the key performers and keeping those key performers in and those who were not delivering the levels of performance sharing those resources. So, the broker performance generally as you know is not particularly variable there are guarantees and some of the contacts but I think we are taking actions with the resource reduction to address the lower performing brokers. In terms of general efficiencies, broader part, Jeff mentioned in his remarks of what we are doing at combining our technology teams, combining our finance and accounting staff, our legal staff, looking for synergies that are really across the organization. And frankly we are doing that across our businesses. As we look at ways to become more efficient in our staff functions that supports the business. And then frankly, as I mentioned in my remarks we still are investing in growth. We have got a number of projects, some we have discussed externally, some that we have not, that we continue to invest in. And shipping get worst in the market, we have the ability to delay or suspend some of those projects. But as we sit here today, as Jeff mentioned, we see numerous growth opportunities and we think now is the good time to invest and seize those opportunities.

Okay. Thanks, Scott, and then as my follow-up Jeff, historically ICE has grown, both organically and through acquisitions. What does the M&A environment look like now, what are build versus buy capabilities and how do you view that vis-à-vis where your own stock is right now? Thanks.

Yeah. It's interesting market that we are in right now for a while lot of private companies that could have been acquired had not reset their expectations of their own value and with the unfortunate prolonged downturn that we have had, people are getting realistic in the private markets about valuations and looking at a relative public companies for the first time. So I think the private market is actually improving the public market obviously has broadly hurt the financial services industry, and as I pointed out and you can see on the slide that we have related to just the Russell indices, notwithstanding that for example that ICE last year had a 42% rise in revenue and a 28% rise in adjusted EPS, probably some of the best performance of any financial services company in the United States, the PEs of all companies have collapse, so it makes using stock as a acquisition currency complicated, not impossible but complicated. The good news that we have seen lately and I am talking about maybe the last three or four weeks is that one of our competitors recently did a refinancing of their debt and in connection with that, many of the banks and Mark participants in that offering have been through here and talking to us about our borrowing capacities, our current debt and credit lines what have you, and we really do see a improvement in the debt markets right now to the extent that one would want to have them. We feel much more comfortable about our balance sheet now than we have over the last year. And I do think there are, all that taken together, may create some opportunities for doing deals going forward. You pointed out correctly that we have a buy versus build mentality here, and we do have some ideas as Scott pointed for growth that we are investing in internally. And to the extent that other external parts would accelerate us at the right price, we will certainly take a look at those.

We'll go next to Mike Carrier of UBS.

Thanks, guys. Just one question on all the product launches, you guys and a lot of other competitors have been recently launching a lot of products on the OTC side. I just wondering, one, is there that much customer demand, or is it just more innovation on your side? And then just given the pickup in the commissions January, February, is there any related to any of these new products hard to gage, since we can't deal the yearly basis in terms of commission or volumes and new products addition, trying to get a sense of any of them already taken hold?

This is Jeff. I will take the first half of your question and ask Scott to take the second half. In terms of the new product launches, because we were unable for of two year to launch new products, we developed a very expensive backlog that came from talking a customers over very long period of time, and we put priorities into those and our priorities have been to find products that play to our strength with largely are product whether can be electronic trading and can be repeat business as oppose to an important service, but not one that is as high value for our shareholders and that would be just taking longer data swap position and parking them in clearing. Unfortunately the revenue model that exist in this industry is that you get paid one time when a position comes into a clearing house and you can tie up a lot of risk and balance sheet by parking positions that don't move, and you receive very low revenues. So we have announced a broad range of products, they actually are rolling out overtime, we have to give a lot of forward announcement so that people can get ready with their systems and risk modeling, but those are starting to come out now, so I would tell you that generally the performance that we have seen in our OTC market is largely related to the historically existing products suite, and we will just now start to see some contribution from new products.

Yes, Mike and just kind of round that out, I mean we do track the activity we have on our contract. We don't tend to talk about the volumes of any single new contracts, because volumes aren't necessarily indicative of revenue level that you get. I would tell you in January for example, we had contract that did over 11,000 units and didn't deliver a lot of incremental revenue, but generally they are additive. The other thing I would tell you that's more difficult to measure as a lot of time these products fill out the portfolio, the traders want to trade. And so to the extent we add these products, they maybe more inclined to trade existing product, and we are not really able to measure that clearly. So we do track it. I would tell you it's not a meaningful revenue amount as we sit here today, but as we launch more of these products, I do believe it will contribute directly and will contribute to the trading of other existing products.

Let me make one last case, is that we have been able to around the edges want some interesting futures contracts, and where we really think, we can get volume, we tend to try to put them in that venue. And so our emissions' contracts are doing really well, and our new coal contracts that we were able to launch or doing very, very well. So they don't get a lot of attention, specifically from the marketplace. But they are very, very important products to us that are growing.

Okay. That’s helpful, and then just had a follow-up. On the Creditex side, or the CDS side, you indicated sort of what the OTC on the energy side the commissions were, in January, I guess any color, on the credit side. And then just on Creditex, just given that it's a different model, I guess going forward, if we continue to see some pressure, just on the reduction in volumes for the industry, I guess, is there a way that we should be thinking of just the compensation line going forward, which is different versus how we use of think about it, is there any color there?

So again, I will take the editorial part of your question, and let Scott gave you the numbers. The cover on CDS, I think the reason that I spent a fair amount of time in our prepared remarks talking about CDS is that, I wanted to set the tone with you for sort of the flavor of how we are thinking about the CDS markets. And that is that it is not to us just about moving OTC bilateral positions into a clearing house. And increasingly now, the whole industry has come to the same realization, and that is that we really need to restructure the design of the product and make it, so that it is more clearer ball, if you will, so that it can be netted and so that it can be more standardized. We need to standardize some of the actual default procedures that are in this space to further improve it based on anecdotal evidence that came around some of the two dozen or so default that happened, particularly in the fourth quarter, so the work that's going on right now around the clearing house, and the clearing house has served us sort of a forum and a venue for these kind of discussions with the industry and with the regulators are about that restructuring. So it's that that I think ultimately is the value proposition that we have built and invested in. It's about having clearing, it's about having electronic execution capability, it's about having voice capability, it's about having straight through processing and post-trade capability. All of those were being simultaneously worked on by us to position ourselves for what we think is going to be a very different market going forward. And I will just add to that that I think there was a false perception in the market that somehow we at ICE, created some kind of application and turned it into regulators and we are sitting here waiting for regulators to approve this. That is not the case. What has happened is there has been an interactive dialogue going on around the restructuring of the CDS industry and how some of these pieces can come together and it's that ongoing dialogue that involves many, many regulatory agencies, many, many market participants and are clearing and post-trade infrastructure that's trying to get put into place, so that that can all be solved at the moment in time that this launches. And I think we are at tail end of that. A lot of decisions have been made, particularly in the month of January that I think will lead to a much enhanced market structure.

And in terms of business efficiency, opportunities with Creditex, I think they come in a number of flavors. There obviously are efficiencies from the staff integration that we talked about. There are efficiencies and possibility improvement like continuing to keep the top performing brokers on the team and those underperforming, letting them go. There is also a continued shift to a number of the innovative electronic offerings that Jeff discussed in his remarks, whether it's compression runs, Delta-Neutral Auction, credit default auctions, all of those carry substantially higher incremental margins on each dollar revenue, which obviously help the overall operating margins. So, I think there are a number of ways that business will continue to become more efficient as I mentioned, I believe, in earlier answer, we remain confident that despite the revenue declines, we can still achieve our overall target of GAAP accretions within 18 months, and actually assuming some modest pickup in the back half of the year, we believe we could get cash accretion in the second half.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

We will go next to Niamh Alexander of KBW. Niamh Alexander – KBW: Hi, good morning. Can I just switch over to the regulatory side of things for a bit, we were expecting quite a lot of headlines, but I read through and Mr. [Kent] responses to some of the politicians questions, but I guess it looked like he was kind of ready to go back and revisit the whole speculative position limits and speculative limits in the commodity's shredding area. I'd like your views on that. And the other area would be just CFTC-SEC merger, what are the risks if any do you see to ICE from that situation?

Sure. Thanks, Niamh. First of all, we obviously are aware of those responses as well and a couple of points that you may not be aware of. First of all, as result of now a number of years of working, both with the CFTC and with Congress, ICE has instituted the reporting, large trade reporting, increased reporting to the CFTC and position limits and accountability standards across our major products. So the kind of things that I think are being visited there are really in my read, intended to take the kind of work that ICE has done and make sure that anyone else coming into this market that would be in a similar position, would be obligated to do this kinds of things. I have said before as we were going through this, and I am sure you recall, that we don't have any one large customer, we have a very diverse customer base that tend to hold smaller position. And so some of the launches that are being discussed as to how accountability limits and position limits maybe set, whether they are done by exchanges, or by Congress, or by working groups, or by the CFTC itself. That's more of a detail as oppose to any kind of headline risk that we see. I think it is fair for Congress to continue to look at this issue. We were heightened and you may have also seen that GAO came out with a report recently that that indicated that they did not see sign that speculators themselves were driving prices. Our own studies did not suggest that speculators were in themselves driving prices so. I think, moving on to the second part of your question with respect to the CFTC-SEC merger, we think there is going to be broader…

Sure. I think first of all, it's interesting that particularly in the last 30 days or so, I really feel like there is a broad recognition on the market that the current product is broken. There are people right now that are making a lot of money trading credit default swaps, but it's largely because of forced liquidations by people in the market and very wide spreads and difficult counterparty relationships. And so while people are making money right now, there is a general sense that that is not sustainable. That is a process of people going out of business and leaving the market, and so what we have seen is a movement, particularly around our clearing infrastructure to not only standardize the contract, but figure out a new way that we can create price transparency to mark position to the market. And as you may know what trades right now and what you can see on various real-time tapes is a five-year typically a five-year CDS product. And there is price transparency in that liquid part of the market. What exists in the backlog on everybody's books is something other than a five-year product. It is a product that it's off the run that has the case, and for which there is no price transparency and a lot of issues on how to mark those positions to market, and so the debate that has been going on is very similar to what we see in a broader idea of creating a bad bank for derivatives in the CDO space and that is we can move these positions into a clearing house and the intent of ICE Trust is the move that legacy positioned very quickly into the clearing house, but how do you mark them to market? And the answer is increasingly moving towards creating some kind of end of day auction process that would create transparency in real time trading of that, and that's where we are part of the debate, that's why this clearing house has have not yet been approved. We are working out the details of that with the industry. We are fortunate that Creditex is the industry's choice of platform where default auctions and price transparency takes place, and so we are very, very well-positioned. I think as these products becomes standardizes, as there is more electronic price transparency given discovery of prices that we will be able benefit.

And one thing I would add to that it's just in relative positioning to the extent that the standardization does move things more electronic, we have a very well established electronic trading platform at Creditex. 36% of the business done in 2008 was done electronically. Well over 70% of the business in the U.K. was done electronically, so to the extent it does move more electronically we are well-positioned to that, to the extent some of it's stays in the voice, broker market as I mentioned earlier. We still have a very talented broker team of Creditex that's positioned to handle the business that way. Niamh Alexander – KBW: Okay. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

Sure.

We will next to Dan Fannon of Jefferies & Company. Dan Fannon - Jefferies & Company: Thanks. Most of my questions have been answered, but just wanted get maybe if you could little bit of color on the differentiation maybe amongst your customer base within the OTC segment you gave some comments around some of the commercial users, but could you talk about how you kind of the banks liquidity providers started to act here thus far 2009 as well?

We only had a month in 2009, but what I can tell you as we looked at 2008 and this is true of the fourth quarter and year, our customer mix is pretty stable. And on the chart, we showed in the presentation 2007 and 2008, I tell you if you look back to 2005, 2006 you would see basically the same thing. We consistently had a 45% to 50% mix of commercial user, that's still the case. We consistently had the bank to the 22% to 25% and the liquidity providers around 30%, so we have been very stable with our overall customer base, I think one of the reasons as Jeff alluded to there is no single customer that tend to dominate, so is has been a mix and we continue to see demand. You can see it in our data revenue, which were up again in the quarter. You can see it in the number of login IDs that we look at each month, so there remains a great demand for the product we trade in our OTC market in a very consistent, very stable mix of customer participant. Dan Fannon - Jefferies & Company: Okay. Thank you.

Jonathan Casteleyn, Wachovia Securities. Jonathan Casteleyn – Wachovia Securities: Thanks. I will try to be quick here. Jeff, I know you articulated the broad strategy in positioning for the business, but just wondering what you think is the best opportunity for '09 either existing product line or new opportunity?

So that's tough one. Thanks Jonathan. If you really look at our performance last year in 2008, I am very proud of what the business has been able to do, but it's really backend the new initiatives that we are talking about are backend loaded. We just closed on credit actions in the last half of the year. We just launched our clearing house in November in Europe. We just transition Russell to the company in September. So, a lot of the things in my prepared remarks were speaking to were the fact that we are starting this year with an interesting new arsenal. My job as CEO is to be looking at 2010, 2011 and so I am actually quite excited about some of the other things that we have not announced yet, I think continue to position us well. And so that is not to say that 2009 is not going to be very interesting because of those three products. We pointed out the fact that Russell is really spiral indices and right now the market is not differentiating but again that's not sustainable in my view and eventually people are going to gain pay for growth and differentiate value. And there will then be hedging and trading activity we believe around Russell indices that will accelerate. We obviously believe that there is going to be more OTC product that are coming in the clearing houses and we obviously believe that the credit markets are fundamental and are going to restructure become regulated standardized and more transparent. So, which one of those happens in which quarter and which one contributes the most, I do not know but totality of all of those is so interesting I think relative to some of our competitors and I am very proud of what my team here has been able to put together in the way we position those for growth. Jonathan Casteleyn – Wachovia Securities: Okay, thanks, I appreciate that. Just quickly I do not want to pass forwards, but Scott, did you say the are you saying the average for January and February in OTC are at back to million per day or they over a million per day want to make sure clarity on what you said there?

I am not really sure, we were specific but they have been over $1 million. Jonathan Casteleyn – Wachovia Securities: Got it, okay. Thank you.

We’ll go next to Mike Vinciquerra of BMO Capital Markets.

Thanks, Jeff, just one clarification on your comments regarding the standardization the CDS market, it sounds to me like you guys are on very close conversations with the regulators and almost sounds the standard that you set in those conversations may become the default for the industry. I'm just curious if there are other parties, other competitors I guess involved in these conversations that are trying to help set the standards, or if you guys will essentially become the standard in another markets will have to go buy whatever you guys develop with the dealers and the regulator.

Sure. I think it's fair to say that is, which really sets broadly the standards on behalf of the industry, and it's the form where historically things are adopted and where agreements, the ultimate settlement and what have you, in the agreements are manifest. That process is going on as well. It's just that in order for us to launch the clearing house, we have to have the issues resolved from the first day. We can not necessarily wait for ease what is the process to play out so what we have been doing with the regulators and with the broad group of market participants are solving for these problems, putting them in our rules and risk models and then if the industry adopts what we have done, nothing will change at our clearing house. It is to somehow modify that process then we will go back and change to comfort with the broad industry group. But it is part of our application and it is part of our thinking with the banks that have initially joined us and now with the new bank that has joined Barclays that we are going to take their existing positions immediately and backload them into the clearing house. So that means from the first day of operation, we have to have transparency and price discovery into the legacy positions, and these are you read everyday in the newspaper that there are real column in price discovery of the liquid derivates. So, I would say to you that it's unique and the Creditex is the venue that is has selected for price discovery has long been established we have agreements with markets to stay effect with 2005 on how we go about doing price discovery. And so revisiting of that is going on with the regulators. Our clearing house will only be as good the marks that we put in and the day the minute we put marks into that clearing house is going to be pays and collapse between various market participants and cash is going to move based on those marks and people are going to have to take P&L charges based on those marks. And so it's very, very important for the industry and to the regulators that from the very beginning we get that right.

So is it true then if you get SEC approval you can start trading these products. You do not have to wait for it is their tax rate confirmed the standards that you have set?

At least we have group of market participants that have agreed to use our platform and are in the process and agreeing to use those marks. So I believe that it's such a large amount of open interest that will move quickly in that is that it's very, very likely that our marks and our standards will be adopted broadly. But I do not want to prejudge what others may bring to the process, that is a long standing process of multiple voices and compromise and that will continue to operate through its own course.

Very good. Thank you.

We will go next to Patrick O'Shaughnessy of Raymond James.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

The quick question I had was going back to the Russell contract. I kind of understand the premise that, you have stated about 5% market share to S&P 500 e-mini for the last several months. But kind of if you look back little bit further it was turning around 10% market share, I think when the contract was previously held to see group. So my question would be what can you guys do to kind of get the trading volumes back up the levels where they have historically been or to get that market share back up to levels where it's historically been?

I think the short answer is that is nothing because lot of that is volume that we are not interested in. A lot of that is Delta is volume that existed on an up quite trading for and we are not prepared to launch these things open. Secondly, it was volume that was, there were many, many people that had to deal that they paid $50 a day for all they can trade and we are not willing to put in these highly differentiated price structures of various people with that really do not provide any revenue to the company. We do not mange ICE for volume growth, we mange ICE for revenue growth. And as long as there is deep liquidity in a market place we are happy to have a smaller volume at higher revenue where the prices that our customers pay are transparent and fair. So that we do not get some kind of quivering of prices and sense inside our customer bases somehow some people are advantaged and others are disadvantaged. And that's main reason that we on the first day that we moved that contract over we did not bring that customer base along.

All right. It makes sense. Thanks a lot.

We go to Patrick Pinschmidt of Morgan Stanley.

Hey, good morning guys.

Good morning.

A quick modeling question in terms of the targeted broker headcount reduction within Creditex, I mean is it fair to anticipate some sort of revenue slippage there, or do you is the plan to kind of migrate these broker books to electronic platforms therefore keep the revenue?

We, I mean as we look at the broker reductions as I said this was lets go state 15 or 20 brokers out, it was a very thoughtful analysis on which brokers are producing and which are not. And that's reflective of the package as Jeff alluded to earlier, we don’t manage for revenue, we mange for profit, so we wanted to keep the efficient brokers on board and we have done that we have got a very talented remaining team, those were less efficient go away. Which is a long winded way of saying, I do not expect that the reduction in the brokerage business in and out itself, will result in particularly negative impact to revenue. The revenue issue we are dealing with right now is frankly a soft market, just waiting to see what happens in the clearing and the regulatory front. And when that comes back with the broker team we have got and electronic platform we offer, I think we will not only benefit from the clearing initiative we are working on. But also from the more traditional execution business that Creditex brings to us.

Okay. Great, thanks.

At this time I will turn the conference back to management for any additional remarks.

Well, again thank you all for joining us. And we look forward to talking to you again next quarter.

That concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation.