Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the LPL Financial Holdings Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Chris Koegel, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Abigail. Good afternoon, and welcome to the LPL Financial fourth quarter 2015 earnings conference call. On the call today are Mark Casady, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and Matt Audette, our Chief Financial Officer. Mark and Matt will offer introductory remarks, and then we will open the call for questions. We ask that each analyst limit their questions to one question and one follow-up. Please note that we've posted a financial supplemental on the Events section of the Investor Relations page on lpl.com. Before turning the call over to Mark, I'd like to note that comments made during this conference call may include certain forward-looking statements concerning such topics as our future revenue, expenses and other financial and operating results; improvements in our risk management and compliance capabilities; the regulatory environment and its expected impact on us; industry growth and trends; our business strategies and plans, as well as other opportunities we foresee. Underpinning these forward-looking statements are certain risks and uncertainties. We refer our listeners to the Safe Harbor disclosures contained in the earnings release and our latest SEC filings to appreciate those factors that may cause actual financial or operating results or the timing of matters to differ from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements. In addition, comments during this call will include certain non-GAAP financial measures governed by SEC Regulation G. For a reconciliation of these measures, please refer to our earnings press release. With that, I'll turn the call over to Mark. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, Chris, and thank you, everyone, for joining our call. Today, I'd like to talk to you about our 2015 results and our plans for 2016. I'll then turn the call over to Matt to cover our fourth quarter results. The…

Thank you, Mark. It's good to speak with everyone on the call today. Let's talk about our fourth quarter results and the environment, which was no doubt challenging. Our adjusted earnings per share were $0.37, a decline of $0.18 versus the prior quarter. The biggest driver of this decline is the reduction in our brokerage sales activity and advisory fees and greater expenses from seasonal and non-recurring items. While I'll walk through the Q4 results in greater depth, I want to emphasize up front that the core G&A increase during the quarter was as planned and actually slightly below the outlook we gave last quarter. So we kept our expenses in line. In addition, I plan to give you some perspectives on 2016. Keep in mind, my comments are not intended to be targets or guidance. I just want to give some color given the macro environment we are in right now and how we see that impacting our results directionally. Turning to our business, we need to keep our focus on driving long-term value, especially in these volatile times. And while there are many things we are doing, one critical goal is grow assets. I want to talk about that first. Our Q4 end of period total assets increased to $476 billion, or by 3% from Q3. Net new advisory assets were $3.1 billion for the quarter, down from $4.2 billion last quarter. For the year, net new advisory assets were $16.7 billion, down from $17.5 billion in 2014. Moving to how these asset levels and growth rates impact our results. Assets in both brokerage and advisory are the key drivers of our gross profit; and as everyone is well aware, the macro environment in Q1 has been quite challenging so far. The S&P ended 2015 at 2,044 and…

Thank you. Our first question comes from the line of Steven Chubak with Nomura. Your line is open.

Hi, good evening. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Good evening.

So first I had a question about the prospects, Mark, as you were speaking to about potential advisory conversion, which is something that's been ongoing for at least the last couple of years. You had spoken to it last quarter. In the event that the DOL proposal is more challenging or I guess, using your words, unworkable, is that still an viable option under the amended credit agreement given that the debt covenant as written would presumably make that increasingly challenging as you would drive a rebasing in the adjusted EBITDA? I just wanted to make sure that that's still a viable option, that's still on the table, even in the context of the debt covenant as written. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: It's absolutely a viable option. I don't see that it has any impact to what the debt covenants are. We have plenty of room and plenty of wiggle room, if you will, in the covenants. You'll recall that we added extra leverage covenants, not necessarily anticipating this much of a drop in the world, but anticipating that there are always rough waters ahead. So it has nothing to do with that at all. It's all about what the end investor needs to have to be able to be successful in their retirement goals for those types of assets and what the practical way of dealing with those needs are. And it's also just the process itself. It would obviously be a significant conversion of assets and accounts in a relatively short time, given that we're hearing that the implementation period will probably be about eight months or so once the information's released. We are planning basically for multiple scenarios here and working through our systems and service and operational activities, if you will, anticipating again a pretty wide range of outcomes once we see the regulations come out from the DOL.

Thanks. And just one more follow-up from me, just digging into the commission breakdown. It was nice to see actually the surprising resiliency in variable annuity commissions. Just given what we're seeing in the 10-year, what's your outlook for that at least in 1Q and what trends are you seeing thus far? And if you can give us an update on what your expectations are given some of the rhetoric that's come out of D.C. that's highlighting hurdles to that product, that would be much appreciated. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. So just a reminder, the Department of Labor allows for variable annuities under their new proposed rule-making. It's an allowed product. There are some changes in the way that its exemption is run, without too geeky on you here, that relate to using the best interest contract as a way of making sure the consumer understands the expenses involved. So we see it as a very workable and viable product. We know consumers will want it, because they're trying to create their own pension plan. And we know that they want it, because they're also trying to get exposure to equities, but also protect themselves from the down side; a lesson the last six weeks makes particularly clear. And they're trying to create some guaranteed income streams. So I think there's really two sources of change that could come. One is that the best interest contract isn't workable and, therefore, we switch over to advisory as a primary way of solving for retirement assets; and variable annuities are a commissionable brokerage product, and therefore for a retirement account you'd want to use a non-commissionable VA. We actually were an innovator many years ago – several years ago of creating VAs without commissions in our…

Thanks, Mark. I'll hop back in the queue. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Alex Kramm with UBS. Your line is open.

Hey. Good morning. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Hey, Alex.

And actually, good night. See, I'm confused by the change. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: You have to catch up to us here, Alex.

Yeah. That's all good. Anyways, just following up on the whole transition to advisory, which you're – obviously ongoing process, but obviously you're recognizing that that could accelerate with the DOL. I think this has been asked before, but how do attachment revenues compare under advisory versus brokerage? I mean I assume brokerage products, you get a lot of fees from mutual funds and you made some comments around those attachment revenues being down a little bit. If people go to advisory and they use more ETFs and like other like wrap products and things like that, how do the attachment revenues, the transaction fees and the asset-based fees change potentially for you? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. And actually let me simplify – I think it's the best way to look at it. Effectively, the same capabilities that we provide doing transfer agency work, supply and reporting, all those things that are the mechanics of providing distribution stay the same whether the asset is in a brokerage account or whether it's in an advisory account. And that's by far the majority of the revenues that we receive in this category. You can't have sponsorship in advisory assets, so we don't have that today. And you do have effectively sponsorship that's within marketing charges that are within the brokerage world. So it already exists and is the fact that you have that difference in the way revenues are created on the attachment side. Remember, though, that in addition to those attachment revenues we receive an account charge, as you say, transaction fees and the like; and those fees are basically higher than the advisory account when you think about it as an ongoing collection of revenues. So we've often said that a dollar of client…

All right. That's very helpful. And then I guess just a small one from me for Matt. I think you gave some color here just now on the cash sweep and what you're seeing so far this year. I think you said low-50 basis points on the ICA, so maybe can you be a little bit more specific there? I don't know, is that 52 basis points I guess? And then what you're seeing right now? And then you said in the second half it's coming down a bit. So can you just be a little bit more specific to what level, as some of those arrangements move, roll-off you think you'll be in this kind of rate environment? And then, sorry, I missed the number on your money market funds fees. I think you said where those are running so far this quarter as well. So that'd be helpful again. Thanks.

Yeah. So 20 basis points on the money market fees. On sweep, so they're just above 50 basis points. They're slightly above 50 basis points is all the precision I have for you there. But to clarify, that's the run rate post the anchor bank rundown, if you will. So that rundown's going to happen over the first half of the year. So everything else being equal, we'll be biased to be above that low-50 basis points for the first half of the year, and the low-50 basis points is just the run rate once that's done. So hopefully that gives you a little bit perspective on that rate.

Okay. And then there's nothing thereafter as we get to 2017, or are we basically completely done just with that issues, the run-offs?

Yeah. I mean, it's a large portfolio with a lot of different banks. By far, that is the biggest and really the only material one worth noting.

All right. Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ken Worthington with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning or good afternoon. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: We've really thrown all of you today by doing the call in the afternoon, haven't we? Ken, you're breaking up, I'm afraid. Ken, are you there?

Our next question comes from the line of Chris Shutler with William Blair. Your line is open. Chris C. Shutler - William Blair & Co. LLC: Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Hey, Chris. Chris C. Shutler - William Blair & Co. LLC: As you transition more to advisory kind of keeping on that theme, where do you think, Mark, looking out a few years, three years to five years, what percentage of your total assets do you think could be advisory? And how do you guard against the issue of reverse churning, which has been brought up by regulators? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Well, that is like a 30,000-foot question followed by a one-foot question. But the one foot first. So reverse churning, just for those who aren't in the know, means that you don't trade the account enough. And that is a concern of us as the organization that oversees the activities of advisors, is it s a concern for investors where their money may not be managed to the level they need it to be and particularly in volatile markets. And we have a process for reviewing every advisory account here and making sure that we can see if it's on the corporate RIA, LPL's RIA that we can see the activity that's going on. If we're a custodian for the RIA, then they have their own compliance process that looks for reverse churning and they own the liability that comes from the lack of adherence to the rules of the SEC. So not particularly worried about it. In my experience, it's a relatively limited problem because most of the time you have volatility in markets. Maybe we have more than we all would like…

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Chris Harris with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.

Thank you. Hey, guys. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Hey, Chris.

First question relates to the balance sheet. If we run rate your current EBITDA, based on my calculations, you guys are at 4.3 times leverage now, already over your target. So from there it seems like it would only take another 15% or so decline in EBITDA and then you're up against the 5 times leverage limit in your covenants. So wanted to get your thoughts about at what point might you actually need to start paying debt down with excess cash flow as opposed to thinking about buybacks?

Yeah. Chris, so this is Matt. I'll take that one. And I think there's a few things to keep in mind. First, I'm sure you're looking at it, but keep in mind that from a covenant standpoint, it's the credit-defined EBITDA, right. So that's a metric that we negotiated. It's got a little bit of more flexibility than the management defined adjusted EBITDA that we've had. So if you look at the quarter and it's just north of $110 million or $111 million for that metric. Second, I think you know them well because you just stated them, but we did negotiate covenant capacity in the new debt. And the other thing that I would keep in mind is it's a trailing four quarter test, right. So when we entered into the deal we were at 3.7 times. We ended this quarter at 3.8 times. So it's not something that happens overnight. With respect to the quarter, right, so just annualizing the quarter the way you did, I would keep some seasonality items in mind and maybe just starting on the gross profit side, right. So from a payout standpoint, I'm sure you know this well, but the bonus production payout is billed throughout the year, right. So Q4, just by the nature of the payout, is the highest quarter of the year, right. So annualizing that is going to have a disproportionate impact. And then all the things that are highlighted on the expense side that has some seasonality, core G&A with some year-end disclosure. It's our typical year-end service ramp up. On the promotional side, the year-end marketing push and then on the regulatory side, where we expect to decline from here. So there's just a lot of things that I think I would caution in annualizing Q4. But then to your point, just sticking to the environment, right. There's no doubt, as I said a little bit earlier, the commissions and advisory fees are going to be pressured in this environment. But at the same time, there's some natural offsets, right. Transactions would typically be higher. Our cash sweeps would tend to be higher, right. They grew in the fourth quarter. You'll see next week when we release January metrics, where January came out, there's definitely some natural offsets there. Putting all that together, right, the environment's not lost on us. Our covenants and our debt are not lost on us. We need to be dynamic and flexible, making sure we're balancing, focusing investments for growth, but also being efficient and smarter here. So hopefully that gives you a bunch of color and context on how we're thinking about that.

It does, yeah. Thank you for that. The follow-up I had really had to do with the buyback. And I know you guys tend to have a pretty good line of sight in your business, and so I would imagine that you guys had some idea that the fourth quarter was going to be pretty challenging. So I'm not sure why then you'd buy so much stock ahead of that trend, as opposed to waiting until after the fact and then you'd have all kinds of dry powder. So maybe you can help us understand the timing associated with the buyback and maybe what happened during the quarter that perhaps was a surprise? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Well, I think the surprise is the market downturn, right. No one predicted the Spanish Inquisition. As you look at it, you have six weeks of relentless market drop, including today; and that is the issue. So I think as you look at it, what we saw was an opportunity to get the first wave of buyback done at pace. And we have always been an aggressive buyer of our shares. And so this is no different in terms of our behavior. And certainly, we had insight into the quarter and knew we'd have challenges, but didn't feel we'd be that far off from the rest of the market. And I think the rest of the market's reporting shows that we're not that far off. And so on a relative basis, the price is going to be somewhere around a number not too different than we used and therefore makes sense to do it sooner rather than later in terms of reducing share count; and it was no more complex than that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Bill Katz of Citigroup. Your line is open.

Okay. Thanks very much. Appreciate you taking the questions. I guess, good evening. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Sure.

I think I'm following along. So could you talk a little bit about how much flexibility you have with the core G&A? From what I've heard so far there's a lot of pressure on the top line against investment spend. So I'm just trying to understand how much of offset there might be for margin pressure if this environment does not improve? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. We have plenty of room for adjusting expenses. And we've had a history as an organization of adjusting expenses where needed. Unfortunately, we all get to remember 2008 and 2009 in moments like this when we had a significant reduction in our run rate of cost back then. Without going into the details, it was a significant change in our run rate cost. If we obviously view the market's going to continue this way, we'll have to do something somewhat similar. We do believe that it's important for us to stay focused on particularly our technology projects and the work we're doing to continue to attract and retain advisors. And we need to understand, as anybody does, kind of what this market's going to hand us in terms of both market performance and activity. We have plenty of leverage to pull what I would describe as low, medium and high. And we have no problem pulling on those levers when we need to.

Okay. Second question is just as you think about your mix shift, you know the ongoing migration toward advisory. If we deposit an environment of flat interest rates for the next couple of years as the forward curves are increasingly suggesting, how does the profitability play out if you in fact do migrate more to advisory? And then the second correlation to that is what comments do you have as that business migrates at your – what your capture rate would be? So in other words, would there be some leakage in your assets as a result of that migration? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. Great question. So I think as you look at the dynamic of that business and the assets influx, you'd expect that if it's a greater push towards advisory, let's say particularly predicated on the Department of Labor, that we're going to see that particularly harming our independent broker-dealer competitors. And we would then see assets in motion both from advisors moving to places that are really under severe pressure into places like LPL, who is a market leader. And you would expect to see consumers making decisions about what they want. And we have a very wide variety of ways we can solve their problems. We talked about a few of them like Optimal Market portfolios, Model Wealth portfolios, robo advice, our SAM programs where its rep is the portfolio manager on the advisory side. So we certainly would have some leakage. We always have leakage out of any program from existing advisors. That's 96% retention, rather 100%. But as you look at it, that leakage would be more than overwhelmed from other assets coming in through those other sources. So I don't particularly see that as a worry in and of itself. I think you'll always have the body of work that it takes to get advisors and investors to understand their choices, make those choices and then execute on them. And so I think you always have some execution risk. We're definitely talking about a sizeable movement if it's motivated by the Department of Labor in particular. If it's not that, it's just the normal process we've seen today, then no worries at all on really any of those fronts.

And just one last one, I appreciate you taking all my questions this evening. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Of course, Bill.

When we look at your net new advisors down for the second quarter in a row, a number of your peers are just talking about very strong pipelines and very good asset growth, et cetera. Can you sort of keys out from that number how much of this might be ongoing attrition from some of your lower cost producers versus maybe what might be going on at the macro level that could be stalling some of your growth in that line, if you will? Thank you. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah, absolutely. So it's really continuing in fourth quarter what we saw in the third quarter which is producers who have very low production levels, zero to $10,000 to $20,000 worth of production that are going out; and we basically have the new classes come in at much higher asset levels or production levels than, say, the previous year as we mentioned in our script; and that changeover is what's happening. And so the head count has always been an easy proxy over the years just to say, hey, use head count times an average production number and that will get you assets. That formula doesn't work at this size, because you're getting a flushing out of the lower end producers; and you're bringing in the higher producer and you can't see that in the head count. Where you have to feel comfortable that that number is correct is you look at the advisory asset flows, you look at the overall asset levels and you sort of take-out market and you can see there's asset growth there, which should be predicated on advisors adding assets who are already with us and obviously advisors who are joining us. And then I think you can see there's a number of industry consultants and others who report on movement of assets; and of course there's press releases. We don't do them for every single one, but many in the industry do a lot of them that show movement of teams into LPL and the like. So we feel like we're in very good shape vis-à-vis our competitors and very good shape in terms of movement of assets. And I would say that as we look forward, similar to our competitors, we do see a pipeline that's building nicely. I do think we have to be concerned about this market movement. Typically, when you get this kind of extreme, advisors slow down the movement process just because they are busy helping clients feel okay about these markets. But with that said, just in terms of pipeline build, we see a good pipeline build probably better than we had in a couple years and which is obviously good for shadowing some movement.

All right. Thanks very much. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Sure.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Devin Ryan with JMP Securities. Your line is open.

Hey, thanks. Good afternoon. Just a couple of follow-ups for me. The first, clearly, a number of fee structures across the RIA custodian space, and I know that you guys aren't necessarily trying to be the low-cost provider there given all the services you provide. But just with some firms seeming to give more away for free today, how are you guys thinking about pricing; meaning, do you think about changing pricing or maybe even reducing pricing to accelerate asset gathering to the RIA channel maybe in the context of some movement around the DOL rule implementation, for example? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. I do think that – so there's really two types of pricing with an advisory that are important to distinguish. You talked about essentially RIA custody pricing, and we feel like that pricing is pretty much at stasis when we look at the custodian competitors. That's come down over the years, as you say. But generally speaking, it seems to have found its point of distinction between the major custodians; and we feel like we're quite competitive there. As you say, we have additional services and features, and so for a little bit higher price premium as at RIA, you can use LPL to outsource a fair amount of the work that you have and use our middle office technologies at lower cost than you would having to do that on your own. So that's the value proposition. It's clearly working, because two-thirds of last year's class was in the hybrid RIA market. Where we do see an area that we can continue to build is in the central platforms like Model Wealth portfolios and in the corporate RIA, where basically if you look at that prices that we changed a few things last year really in anticipation of the DOL rule, removing the $40 per year IRA fee, for example, in Model Wealth portfolios. And we would continue to look at making price changes in those two areas, which are different than custody of RIA assets where we feel prices are good. And we'd obviously look for things to help offset those kind of changes. But it has been our tradition to do that for exactly the reasoning you stated. It just doesn't take much to overwhelm any price cut in volume. And because the world is heading to advisory, and the more we can do to make practice as efficient by letting advisory to outsource to the central platforms or outsource to the corporate RIA, where they don't have the legal liability and we can oversee their activities, the better everyone will be in that equation.

Got it; very helpful color. Thank you. And just a quick housekeeping one on the covenant calculations, the net debt portion of the leverage ratio calculation, is there any limitation on the cash balance that could be netted against the debt?

Yeah, Devin. It's $300 million. So we've got cash available for corporate use of $500 million. So $300 million of that is netted against the covenant calculation.

Got it. Thanks very much. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Joel Jeffrey with KBW. Your line is open. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Joel, are you there?

If your phone's muted, please unmute. Joel Jeffrey - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Sorry, are you there guys? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Now we can. Joel Jeffrey - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Sorry about that. I had a quick question on your advisory revenues. I know in your brokerage business you get 12b-1 fees in the trailer line. Do you generate those out of the advisory accounts as well? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yes, we do. And basically this is where it gets a little complex. You have to take again that same breakdown of where do assets sit. So you assets that sit where we're the REA custodian, and there are 12b-1 fees that can be paid there. All the custodians including LPL receive those. That's part of the offset of the costs. Those are all disclosed and understood at the retail level, and obviously by the RIA. So that is an area that that happens, but for a different reason that it happens within the brokerage world. And then you have within the corporate RIA, you have qualified and non-qualified accounts. And qualified accounts are, of course, taxable – or excuse me, tax free accounts. And in those cases we rebate the 12b-1 fees to investors, excuse me, to offset things like their $40 fee per year for their trusteeship of their IRA or whatever else it might be. And the taxable accounts, the 12b-1 fee is received again fully disclosed to the investor, fully disclosed obviously through the advisors through the corporate RIA and again a practice in which that change has been made. That explain that breakdown? Joel Jeffrey - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: It does. Can you give us a sense for…

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Conor Fitzgerald with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Conor Fitzgerald - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Good evening. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Hi, Conor. Conor Fitzgerald - Goldman Sachs & Co.: So most of my questions have been answered, but just a couple of follow ups. One just technical, if Fed funds effective goes negative, you aren't bound by zero in your ICA calculations, correct? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: I don't believe we'd be. Our contracts with the banks are basically a number, Fed fund plus a number, if you will. So if the Fed fund number goes from 38 or whatever it is to negative 5, it would be still plus a number that's there. So that's the way it's calculated, if that's helpful. Conor Fitzgerald - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yeah. That is helpful. Thanks. And your covenant goes to 4.75 as of Jan 1, 2017. Is that correct?

Yeah. So we've got 5 times for basically a year. So 2016, then down to 4.75. That's correct. Conor Fitzgerald - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Okay. And I'm just trying to I guess understand your thought process on pursuing the buyback, just given kind of some of the risks that you all talked about on rates and what's happened in markets versus preserving cash. Just trying to get a better sense I guess of how you're viewing the risk/reward for buying shares here. Obviously the stock's lower than it was, but just trying to better understand that risk/reward in your eyes.

Right. Going forward from here? Conor Fitzgerald - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yeah, exactly.

Yeah. Well, hopefully that came across loud and clear in the prepared remarks, right. A lot has changed. And we are going to be very slow, deliberate and think through what the best way to deploy the capital is and similar thought process on the expense side. We've got to have the right balance of deploying capital in an effective way for our shareholders, but at the same time recognizing the environment we're in. So there's a lot of balance that needs to happen there and a lot of recognition that things are changing really fast. Six weeks ago this was a totally different world. So I think that all these things we need to keep in mind. Conor Fitzgerald - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Okay. And then just on the 12b-1 piece, a follow-up. I understand there's higher costs related to retirement accounts, but I'm trying to better understand why you have a different pricing structure between retirement versus non-retirement accounts. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: It's all in the regulation that governs each type of account. And the other structural change difference is when you're a custodian versus being the RIA. So our world is a little bit more complex than most because we're both a broker-dealer, or a broker-dealer, a corporate RIA and we are RIA custodian. And so you have of course sets of rules from different regulators that govern each account type. And some regulators will have a ban on certain types of payments; others will have a disclosure rule for it and the like. Conor Fitzgerald - Goldman Sachs & Co.: That's helpful. Thanks. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: So, just to be clear as day for everybody, there's no difference in what we're doing than anybody else is doing in the industry. And so again, what I would read in particular, which again I believe is the source of some of these questions, really is quite a unique circumstance for them as a company and for the way they structure their programs, at least as I understand it. Obviously I don't speak for them. But their circumstance is completely different than ours, and we look more like the custodians and more like other corporate RIAs, and would be right in step with what they're doing.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ken Worthington with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Can you hear me this time? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. There you go. You must be on a land line. Thank you.

Yeah. So sorry to beat the dead horse here. I wanted to actually hopefully close the 12b-1 fee debate. What portion of your 12b-1 fees are charged and trailer fees are charged in advisory accounts? How much are in brokerage accounts with retirement assets and how much are in brokerage accounts of non-retirement assets? How does trailer fees split out between those three buckets? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: So I definitely don't have that in front of me, Ken, and happy to make sure that we look through it. I mean essentially you have 12b-1 fees that are received in brokerage in which there's no question about being able to receive those. And just to be clear as day, some people make the distinction between retirement and non-retirement in brokerage because of the pending DOL rule. But if you look at their rule, they allow 12b-1 fees to be paid on those retail retirement accounts in brokerage. So there's no question that that remains in place. The SEC has approved 12b-1 fees. The SEC continues to allow 12b-1 fee payments to be made. So they are approving the product in essence, right, with has those fees. They oversee the taxable accounts through FINRA, and then basically the tax-free accounts are overseen by FINRA and soon the Department of Labor. And in the Department of Labor rules, they allow 12b-1 fees as the SEC and FINRA do today. So don't see any changes coming there. And I would describe that the majority, vast majority of what we're seeing in 12b-1 fees are there. But I look to Chris or Matt to correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah. Just to add on to tie everything you said together. The vast majority of the 12b-1 fees are on the brokerage platform. And the corporate advisory platforms we were talking about earlier, which I think was the core of the question, are de minimis. So it's the vast majority's on the brokerage side.

Okay. And on the trailers that go to the advisory side, what portion do you keep versus what is paid to the broker versus what is rebated back to the customer account? Does LPL keep any of them or does it all kind of go somewhere else? Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Very little is kept by LPL. And basically it, because in the retirement accounts in advisory in the corporate RIA, those fees are rebated in essence, or not in essence, they're rebated to the consumer through their account. And then within the taxable accounts with an advisory, where it's the corporate RIA, those 12b-1s for the most part have gone away over the years as iShares have been introduced. So Mutual Fund Company A, that's not a good example. Mutual Fund company SAM basically creates an A, B and C share. Over the years, the B share went away. Over the years, the A share became load waived; meaning that you didn't pay the upfront fee, but you still had a 25 basis point 12b-1 fee on it. And that payment continue to be made as it went into the advisory programs. Smith Fund Family then created something called an iShare, mainly for the retirement account business for 401(k) plans and the like. And those iShares worked really well in an advisory account. What's happened is as those iShares get introduced, we basically introduced them into the advisory platform as a way to lower the cost for consumers across the board that are there. So that happens regularly that mutual fund companies make those changes. It changed an awful lot over the last decade. So to my mind most of them have iShares at this point. And we follow the fashion of letting them go to a lower cost level in an advisory because we want to make sure we're providing good value to consumers. So there still are some A shares load waive that are in the system that pay a 12b-1 fee. It's de minimis. And either the fund company will introduce an iShare and it will be eliminated or how that works. So as you look at it, it's just not a big impact. So again you can't compare the Waddell & Reed situation at all with what it is that you're doing within these programs. We would look much more like the Raymond James, the Ameriprises of the world in terms of how these programs work; Schwab for that matter.

Great. Thank you very much. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Sure.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Douglas Sipkin with Susquehanna. Your line is open.

Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon. I apologize. I know you guys have hit on this, but I missed it, but I think it's important. Can you review some of the pricing dynamics in the money market and the insured cash account fees? Can I get the guidance around where the money market fee is going and then the guidance around where the insured cash account fee is going? It sounded like it was going to be stable or even trending up despite the fact that you have that repricing. So I guess what happened there? And why sort of has that repricing maybe shifted out to the second half for the year? Have you like renegotiated with that large customer? Thanks.

Yeah. Sure. So the money market is pretty simple. It's the run rate of 20 basis points with the said increase. On the ICA side, there's a few things going on. I think the first and foremost is of the recent Fed move. We kept 100% of that increase. So just assuming there's a midpoint of the 25 to 50 range that would flow through. On the anchor bank step-down, that is largely offsets that and our prior estimate line was that would happen all in January 1. As we've gotten to the point of actually winding that down, our estimate now is that will wind down over the first half of the year. So the slightly above 50 basis points, those are estimate of the run rate once that wind down happens; meaning that will likely be above that slightly above 50 basis points in the first half of the year.

All right. So for the first half for the year you're above 50 basis points; for the second half of the year you're at around 50 basis points?

Right, assuming no change.

Assuming the Fed, yeah, assuming the Fed fund stays the same. Okay, great. Great. Okay. Appreciate that. Thanks. That's all I got. Thanks so much. Mark Stephen Casady - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: All right. Thank you.