Good morning. My name is Kelly and I will be your conference operator today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the Eaton Vance Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. 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. I’ll now turn the call over to Dan Cataldo, Treasurer. You many being your conference.

Great. Welcome to our 2015 fiscal third quarter earnings call and webcast. Here this morning are Tom Faust, Chairman and CEO of Eaton Vance, and Laurie Hylton, CFO of Eaton Vance Corp. We will comment on the quarter and then we will take your questions. The full earnings release and charts we will refer to during the call are available on our website eatonvance.com under the heading Press Releases. Today’s presentation contains forward-looking statements about our business and financial results. The actual results may differ materially from those projected due to risks and uncertainties in our business, including but not limited to those discussed in our SEC filings. These filings, including our 2014 Annual Report and Form 10-K are available on our website or upon request at no charge. I will now turn the call over to Tom.

Good morning. July 31, marked the close of our fiscal 2015 third quarter. These three months were period of considerable turmoil around the financial world, whether focusing on China, Greece, Puerto Rico, Russia, Energy markets, commodity prices generally, currency movements or the federal reserve, there was no shortage of new information for the markets to absorb. Though it all U.S. stock and bond markets traded with moderate volatility and ended the period roughly where they began. We finished the quarter with a record $312.6 billion of consolidated assets in our management had $3.9 billion of consolidated net inflows and made progress on advancing a number of important corporate initiatives. But this was not our best quarter from an earnings perspective. We reported adjusted-earnings per diluted share of $0.57 for the third quarter, down $0.01 from the preceding quarter and down $0.06 from the year ago quarter. As noted in the press release, this quarter’s earnings per diluted share were reduced $0.04 by compensation of other costs in connection with closing our New Jersey based affiliate Fox Asset Management and other compensation costs attributable to our clustering of retirements, terminations and additions to staff during the quarter. Adjusting for inter period differences in these cost items, third quarter earnings per diluted share were up 3% sequentially and down 6% year-over-year. The decline in earnings versus last year’s third quarter reflects a 3% drop in revenue and higher compensation and other expenses. Laurie will provide more detail on our financials, including fee trends by product category in her remarks shortly. Net flows of $3.9 billion in the quarter represented 5% annualized internal growth rate. The quarterly flow results include two large flows for our Seattle base subsidiary Parametric, one negative and one positive. First as discussed on our second quarter call back…

Thank you and good morning. As Tom mentioned, we are reporting adjusted earnings per diluted share of $0.57 for the third quarter fiscal 2015 compared to $0.63 for the third quarter fiscal 2014 and $0.58 for the second quarter of fiscal 2015. Adjusted earnings for all quarterly periods presented was the same as reported GAAP earnings. As we noted in the release, costs associated with closing our Fox Asset Management, LLC subsidiary and other employee costs relating to retirement, terminations and new hires reduced earnings per diluted share by $0.04 and drove our operating margin down to 33% from 35% in the prior quarter. Employee costs relating to retirement, terminations and additions to staff reduced earnings per diluted share by $0.001 in the second quarter of fiscal 2015 and $0.02 in the third quarter of fiscal 2014. Third quarter total revenue decreased 3% year-over-year despite a 7% increase in average assets under management, primarily reflecting a decrease in our blended investment advisory and administrative fee rate and a decrease in assets subject to distribution and service fees. Sequentially total revenue increased by 1% reflecting the 2% increase in average assets under management, an incremental $1.6 million in third quarter performance fee and an increase in fee days in the quarter, partially offset by a modest decrease in our effective investment advisory and administrative fee rate. Performance fees for the third quarter of fiscal 2015 totaled $1.7 million compared to a little over $900,000 at third quarter last year and essentially zero in the prior quarter. Going forward, our effective investment advisory and administrative fee rate will continue to be driven primarily by the mix of business among mandates with different fee levels, with swings in performance fees and the number of fee days in the quarter also contributing to short…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Robert Lee from KBW. Your line is open.

Great and good morning everyone. Kathy, I just have on expenses, can you just clarify, I mean you talked about the $0.04 of potential, I don’t know if I’d call it non-recurring. I mean should we think of that as non-recurring or I think you kind of suggested that some of that could be carrying forward. I’m just trying to get a better feel for kind of the run rate of the comp.

Yes, I think we quantified it as a $5.8 million contribution to compensation expense this quarter and really what we’re talking about are very specific quarterly impacts that are not necessarily recurring, but that will – if you got severance for example, you would anticipate that you won’t have the same level of severance next quarter, but you’ll likely have severance next quarter or signing bonus. So we’re trying to sort of isolate the things that were sort of a deviation from what we would consider to be our run rate compensation and that’s what we quantified in the $5.8 million this quarter and that really was breaking down into one-time events related to closing Fox and then certain employee retirements and termination that were very specific to this quarter.

Okay, great, thank. And then Tom, I don’t know – I mean, obviously the portfolio implementation has been very strong. You cited some things with Parametric, but can you maybe update us on if you look across the business, kind of the institutional RFP activity, kind of maybe pipeline, kind of any color around where that stands and maybe drill down a little bit, particularly outside of the Parametric business, the progress you may or may not be seeing.

Yes, so institutional just maybe to step back, our key strategies that we offer institutionally, Parametric aside from their service and implementation oriented businesses, their primary strategy that they sell institutionally is emerging market equities. On the Eaton Vance side the primary strategies that we focus on currently include high yield bank loans, certain other flavors of equities, certain other flavors of fixed income in certain markets and also Hexavest as being a primary focus of ours on the equity side. I would say a few of things are not particularly working well at the moment, starting with Parametric emerging market equities. I think you’re probably aware of the challenges that asset class has faced in terms of performance, so it’s just institutions. Sophisticated though they may be, don’t always allocate new assets to underperforming asset classes, which is where emerging market is at the moment, including lots of headlines about China. We have in that strategy also suffered from a bit of under performance over second half of last year and the first part of this year. That has largely turned around, the key driver of that performance was an underweighting to China. The way that portfolio was built, we systematically underweight large market exposures in the interest of greater diversification and that really hurt us during that time period, but of course as the Chinese market has turned over, that’s now working to our favor. On the Eaton Vance side, high yield is certainly an area where we funded a large institutional mandate during the quarter and where the pipeline and activity level is quite robust. I would say on bank loans we are still in this market environment where we kind of scratch our heads that we had net positive flows for us in normal institutional business,…

Great. And then maybe just one more question or a pair of questions on to our NextShares. First, assuming when you are ready to launch the Europe product, Euro advance NextShares products, do you anticipate that you’ll have some other firms ready to go kind of at right the same time and then what are your current expectations around seed capital and need for those funds. Do you think it’s going to be mainly reallocating existing seed or are we likely to see some increased use of cash or debt. I’m just trying to get a kind of update on your thoughts around that.

Yes, first on the product introduction, our plan has been and continues to be to launch as part of a consortium of sponsors. We highlighted these companies – they are on our website that have filed. I mentioned them in my remarks, but there are 11 sponsors. I would say eight relatively large fund sponsors included in that group. We’re putting together what we’re calling a consortium of sponsors. We have an initial meeting of that consortium that’s been scheduled for next month and our goal would be to launch products in conjunction with other companies. Unfortunately we don’t control the timing of what they do, so we don’t have complete control over that, but it’s our understanding that that’s what everyone wants to do and it will come to market together and everyone sees the benefit of doing that. I would say for Envestnet and how they see NextShares fitting into what they are doing, what they want to do, there’s two primary things; one is potentially introducing NextShares funds as a complement to an existing multi manager strategy, so that could be alongside of the mutual funds or with ETFs, but it could be all active, it could be all passive or it could be into a formerly all passive strategy. But we can blend and that doesn’t necessarily require a consortium to be available, but they would also like to offer a range of NextShares only strategies and most likely they would not want that to come from any single advisor. So that needs to be offered in conjunction with a consortium of funds, introducing NextShares. In terms of seed capital, I would say that’s not something that we have a definitive answer to. I think as you know the general primary requirement for seed capital and…

Great, I appreciate you taking my questions. Thank you.

Yes, thanks Rob.

Your next question comes from the line of Ken Worthington from JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Good morning. This is Will Cuddy filling in for Ken today. Thanks for taking our questions. So just some thoughts; Precidian file who refilled their application last week, what do you guys think of that new filed application? I guess there are some concerns raised in people.

Well, I guess I’ll start by saying some people thought I spent too much time on this topic a couple of weeks ago, so I’m not going to go into a whole lot of detail, but there are a couple of things I would assert. First, since 2001 when the SEC put out what they call a concept release on actively managed ETFs, the possibility of this, their primary focus has been on how well will these trade? Will they trade at tight bid ask spreads and they are all premium discounts and particularly how they will trade during periods of market stress and volatility. As I look at the Precidian filing, this version actually moves a step away from that and that it takes away information that would have been provided in the last iteration. So I guess why you could say that they made progress in addressing certain issues. To my thinking they possibly have moved away in the other thing. I continue to believe and I’m not going to decide this, we’re not going to decide this, the SEC is going to decide this, but it remains my view that all of these various proposals and there are a couple of other ones in addition to the preceding ones, all of them are likely to face an uphill challenge. The SEC is trying to look for evidence that these things will trade consistently well and it’s hard to see that in the historical record of existing ETF and particularly existing active ETFs and knowing and understanding that these will trade less well, because they provide market markers with less information. I think it’s going to be very hard for the SEC to get comfortable here, but again, I’m not in a position to decide this. This is just one persons opinion. And the other thing I would say and I think people sometimes lose sight of this, is that the specific Precidian proposal applies only to funds whose holdings consist entirely of two things, U.S. listed securities and cash and if you look that market for actively managed mutual funds today, that’s about 3% of the fund market. In other words 97% of active mutual funds hold something other than U.S. listed stocks and cash and its possible that they could address a larger market than that over time, but their specific filing as its in and this is the new version as in the old version is just U.S. equity funds and just U.S. equity funds that do not have any holdings outside the United States and any holdings other than cash and that’s a very, very small potential market. So that’s my view and I’m sticking to it, but we don’t get to decide.

Okay, thank you for the view.

And your next question comes from the line of Will Katz from CitiGroup. Your line is open.

Okay, thanks very much for taking my question just now. To just come back to maybe comp and margins on a go forward basis, could you frame out where you might be in terms of the European build out. It seems like you’re in your earlier days for sure. Can you quantify maybe how much more incremental spend there might be and then how long it might take to get to scale. I guess the question is, when could you start to anticipate some kind of flows on the back of the investment spend?

Let me maybe talk about the scale. So scale in terms of spend that is having the team built out, we really expect that to happen probably in the current quarter or certainly by the end of the year. We’ve hired some more people that have not been announced in terms of who they are, although that will be expected shortly. There are a couple of more open positions that we’re likely to fill over time, but this is a major initiative for us. This is a multi-million dollar expense item that we thought was necessary and appropriate to expand our footprint as an equity manager to include a full-fledged robust global equity offering. Some of those expenses are of an ongoing nature, but some of them also are of a one-time nature and the two leaders of that team were onboarded in the current quarter. So any compensation we paid them of a one-time nature in terms of signing bonuses or the initial recognition of the value of an equity grant, those all hit in the current quarter. On a run rate basis those costs are going to go down. Now over time we’re going to have some new people that are going to come on, but the way we tried to frame the discussion of this topic is that we think that over coming quarters generally this category is going to go down. It won’t go to zero, we got new people we’re going to be hiring in the next quarter and maybe some more in the quarter after that, but you should expect to see substantially less than $0.04 a share of spending related to this and related topics; and remember the $0.04 was not just this. It was also the closing of Fox Asset Management, which…

Okay, that’s helpful color. And then just a follow-up question on NextShares, and thanks for the extra color and congratulations on the Envestnet win; it’s very interesting. Could you talk a little bit about that win in particular and just trying to reconcile like your conversation with, I know your comments are proceeding with the uphill battle, which I appreciate and negotiations with the broker dealers maybe do, maybe don’t have to put some seed capital up against kind of from the track record. From their perspective have they provided and how quickly they think they would push the NextShares portfolio and maybe some of the consortium of funds through their system. What kind of track record might they need, that’s sort of part one and the second part is as you mentioned, you’ve had some more negotiations with other broker dealers or other distributors. Could you maybe give a broad profile of the type you are interfacing with, where your most advanced on. Is it another sort of online player or is it more of a traditionally managed broker dealer that maybe we’ll think about like a Merrill Lynch or Morgan Stanley. Thank you.

So just to clarify Bill, on your timing question, was that specific to Envestnet or was that more generally?

I wouldn’t say Envestnet, obviously you got that one. So it appears how fast you think that you might get some uptick from that platform.

As I understand and I’ve been involved in some dissuasions with them, but not all, implementing new strategies on their models is a relatively straight forward process. I mean many of those models are overseen and built by their own in-house teams, there is a vetting process for that. But we are not talking about bringing out NextShares funds that are normal strategies. We are talking about bringing out NextShares funds that effectively replicates the investment track record of – replicate the strategy of an existing mutual fund run by the same team, holding the same assets where it is a very small leap to say that if that same strategy can be offered in a lower cost structure and one that has potential tax advantages that they shouldn’t be ready to adopt that. But is I think consistent with the spirit of what was announced yesterday, that they are not going to take a wait and see attitude for us to see how these things perform. Buying any new strategy involves a bit of a leap of faith, but that leap of faith here I would argue is extremely small and that we are dealing with proven managers, proven strategies with proven track records in a structure that where I think most people would say that the potential benefits in terms of performance, lower costs, etc. are quite clear and doesn’t, wouldn’t be too hard for people to get comfortable with. So we don’t have specific time commitments that I’m aware of on the part of Envestnet. We don’t have product approved yet, other companies don’t have products approved yet. But everything from my understanding of what they’ve said is that when these products are available that they will look to add them to their portfolios and when that…

Okay, thank you Tom.

And your next question comes from the line of Chris Shutler from William Blair. Your line is open.

Hey guys, good morning. First of the NextShares initiative, do you think that you will be profitable by the end of ’16 in that or is it just too early to say.

Well, I would say unlikely. This is a long term initiative. Thinking about it you’d have to kind of – the math isn’t very hard. We’ve talked about what our spending is. I think we’ve also talked about what our fee rates would be. A little math and you can come up with what our average assets would have to be in 2016 to cover that spend. Maybe we’ll get there, but we are not doing this because we expect to make a lot of money in 2016. We are doing this because we think this is a better product for investors and we think overtime that all the various slings and arrows that we’ve taken along the way ought to be at some point rewarded to Eaton Vance shareholders for having done this.

Yes, totally understand. And then on the Envestnet deal Tom, clearly as an effort it seems like on their part to bring down cost for advisors and then investors. But just curious, is there any other way that Envestnet benefits from offering NextShares relative to mutual funds?

I’m not sure what you are getting it.

No, I just didn’t know if there is any kind of additional cost or revenue opportunity for them associated with that. I didn’t think so, but I just want to make sure.

Yes, I think their business model is a pretty straightforward, transparent business model in which they charge fees for services to their customers and that one of the things they try and offer to those customers in exchange for those fees is access to the best products. And how they grow and how they compete is by offering a – I’d say a relatively unconflicted, if not completely unconflicted set of tools and advise on making advisors better in what they are trying to offer their clients and offering NextShares which has we think compelling cost and tax advantages. It fits very well with how they business. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that.

Okay, thanks a lot.

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Berg from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Thanks very much. One housekeeping question and one question related to NextShares. My first question relates to your flows. When you recorded $8.4 billion of gross outflows, just outflows in your equity area, does that include or exclude the loss of the sovereign business from Parametric.

It includes it Eric.

So the loss of the Parametric business that you referenced in your prepared remarks would be included in the equity asset outsource?

That’s right, it’s all during the month of when was that May I think.

Right in the middle of May, so

Yes, so it was in there.

Good. Here is a broader question about NextShares. I’m hoping Tom you can build out on, expand on your comments that model based investing, if you could maybe sort of explain it for those people who I have a sense, but I think would helpful if you could explain what you mean by model based investing which has become so popular in this country and what is it about the model based investing at anything that has done by Envestnet affiliated advisors. Why would it be any different from model based investing at Merrill Lynch? So sort of a two part question. What do you mean by model based investing and what is it about NextShares that make it easier to integrate NextShares into model based investing versus any other form of investing. Thank you.

Okay, let me see if I can explain this. So think about a financial advisors, traditional way you build portfolios, you’ve got advisors sits across from Mr. and Mrs. Jones and they discuss what stocks or bonds or mutual funds or ETS or NextShares funds they are going to put in their portfolio and based on that discussion maybe with some ongoing consultation over time, an advisor will build and manage our portfolio for Mr. and Mrs. Jones that may have some of those and its essentially built on a one-off basis and maintained for Mr. and Mrs. Jones where the advisor is putting in one by one orders to buy individual securities and to sell offsetting amounts of individual securities, so we’ll call that the traditional model, I mean the traditional approach, so that we don’t confuse, sorry, so that’s the traditional approach. A model based approach would be to say – think about a financial advisor that doesn’t have one customer that he or she is serving, but has a menu of customers. And for the interest of efficiency and risk control we’ll put those different customers into different categories, where depending on where Mr. and Mrs. Jones fall relative to Mr. and Mrs. Smith, they might have different risk profiles. But rather than just simply doing this on – I’ll assume the advisor is a he for this purpose, but rather than that advisor just on his own building and maintaining these multiple portfolios for multiple clients in a world where efficiency is increasingly demanded, there has developed what are called model based approaches to portfolio construction and management, where building on this application or building on this example, an advisor would potentially put the Smith’s in one category, the Jones in another category and would either…

Really clear and really helpful. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Carrier of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. Your line is open.

Thanks. Laurie just a question on expenses. So you gave the color around comp, just on the other expenses it seems like it was a bit elevated. I think you mentioned, somewhat with the acceleration, the amortization related to Fox and then maybe a little bit of an uptick in next year, but I just wanted to get some outlook there. And then when you think about the fee, like the mixed shift trend, when you think about some of these investments that are taking place right now. Where do you think the margin can kind of settle into maybe over the next year versus longer term obviously as you scale that international business, you can see some improvement.

Yes in terms of expenses outside of comp, I think that they were somewhat limited in terms of unusual events this quarter. I think to your point earlier we have roughly 500,000 in accelerated amortization associated with effectively closing down Fox. Outside of that we had some legal costs associated with our global initiatives and some incremental marketing associated with NextShares, which was already built into the 1 million estimate that we had give for the year, so not a lot of noise in terms of our other operating expenses. Given the environment that we are in right now and recognizing that we’ve got these significant growth initiatives and the markets been a little bit small to us and has taken away some revenue that we would certainly liked to keep, I am not going to attempt to forecast what margins going to look like next quarter. I will tell you that we are now going to out budgeting cycle and our initial review cycle and that we are doing everything we can to really, very carefully mange our expenses. We are mindful the impact of these initiatives have on our margin, we are mindful of the fact that this is a difficult time to be making these investments but we are also – we feel very strongly that this is the time for us to do it, to position ourselves for the further. So I wish I had a crystal ball and could tell you exactly where the margin was going. I will tell you that we are being very, very careful about spend. Maintain it in the range that we are in but I cent tell you what it’s going to look like for next year.

Okay, all right. I guess I was going to say that we have two major initiatives in NextShares and this Global expansion that are both multi-million expenses that annually, that we have taken on that have the effect of lower our earnings, lowering our margins today. But these are both investments that we think have huge potential, different types, but both investments of a similar scale that have the potential to have enormous payoff over time. So there is a short term pain with a potential, certainly for a long term gain in terms of our business. But you had another question Michael.

Yes, okay that makes sense. And then just a quick one just on NextShares, so on the asset management side you celery make some good progress and then on the distribution side teams like yours, you’re starting to gain some traction. When you think of the distribution platforms and in your conversations, like what is maybe the – I don’t want to say delay, because there was no real expectation of when you would get them onboard. But when you think about like the pushback, like technology investment that the platforms have to make, is it the liquidity of the funds, is it just the meetings that have to take place and they have to make the decision which doesn’t happen overnight. Just trying to get a sense of like how you see that progressing and what are some of the push backs that you’re getting from the distribution process.

I guess I would say the main – I think you hit upon what I would consider the key issues. Probably the biggest is focus, priorities, you got the department of labor out there with the fiduciary, a standard initiative. Where does this fit? The top part about this is that it affects – if a broker dealer imagines this becoming meaningfully successful, it doesn’t affect just one little part of their business. It’s embracing next year’s – potentially could be a pretty big deal decision for a broker dealer or anyone else providing intermediary services and that how it fits into their revenue model, what new revenues it would offer, what revenues might go away, it’s fairly central to their business. It’s not terribly complicated. You can easily identify sort of the pros and cons. All of these firms recognize that they exist to serve clients and that we get zero push back on the idea that this is a better product for clients than the alternatives of a mutual fund and in a very broad range applications, but it’s really kind of getting people that are at a level of seniority in the organization that have a broad enough per view that they can see and think about how this impacts their business, getting them to focus on this, that’s really the challenge for us. We don’t get pushed back at senior levels that people that say, this is bad for our customers or this is bad for our business to a person. They say that this is interesting to a person; they say this is disruptive, but its working this through a process and some of this is maybe reluctance to be first. We’re grateful to our friends at Envestnet for stepping up and willing to be first. We believe that as we make progress here, making further progress gets easier and easier and so we’re working at it and we share the frustration of those that want to get this done tomorrow. I’m certainly in that camp, but we have to work a process and have to be respectful that we’re not the only thing that these firms have to think about. These are generally large complex organizations and these are fairly interesting times where there are some major shifts going on in the offering and distribution of investment products, principally the shift that’s ongoing from active mutual funds to ETFs. Every broker dealer that offers, that serves retail investors and offers funds is experiencing that. How does this fit into this? Does it help them or hurt them to introduce NextShares? I don’t think there’s a lot of debate about that, but what priorities should that get versus other possible initiatives that they might have.

Okay, that’s helpful. Thanks.

And your next question comes from the line of Michael Kim from Sandler O’Neill. Your line is open.

Hey guys, good afternoon. So first, once some of these broker deals have sort of the infrastructure in place and are able to start trading the ETMF. Just based on your current roster of third party managers that have signed up to launch the funds, just curious to get your expectations for related AUM growth in the first one to three years.

Yes, we don’t – I mean, so there are a lot of unknowns here, right. You’re going to have to I think build your own model in terms of timing. I think we can give a lot of guidance on how big the market is, we can give a lot of guidance on what revenue and cost expectations might be, revenue in terms of fee rates, but the big question in this and the big modeling question is what’s the uptick? When does it happen? How big is it? I can make a case where this should be a very rapid conversion. If you look at what happened with passive investing, it took 20 years for ETF to get a 50% share of the passive business, but that was an environment where for the first eight or ten of those years there was extremely limited product offerings. The first half dozens of those years was essentially one or two funds available. As I see it, given the historical pattern of acceptance of ETFs, the fact that people know what an ETF is, also the fact that there will be many, many fund companies out there talking about this, the fact that from the get go its approved for all asset classes. If this takes off, that’s a big if; it should not take 20 years to get to a 50% market share. So I don’t have a great answer for you in terms of what AUM will be at the end of 2016 or 2017. I think if this takes off, it can take off relatively quickly, but we’re not going to be where we hope to be by the end of 2016 or 2017. There’s a lot of advisor education. There’s a lot of money that’s in strategies and products that will have to migrate to this. Everyone can believe this is a better mouse trap, but still that doesn’t mean the assets will all move overnight. So sorry I can’t help with the modeling questions.

No, I appreciate the color. And then just on the equity side of the business, just wondering if you could talk about sort of the dynamic between adverse demand trends across the industry, particularly as it relates to actively managed domestic strategies versus improving investment performance, track records as you look across your platform and maybe the opportunity to gain some market share.

Yes, I guess I would say and I’m not particularly proud of this, but at the moment we don’t have a whole lot to lose in terms of traditional active assets invested in U.S. equities. We had a one-time, a quite large cap value franchise that is – I think it’s around the $8 billion today versus a peak of something like $34 billion. I would assume that to some degree the continued outflows we’re seeing despite a pretty good performance record has to do with that broader trend from active to passive. So to some degree we’re being hurt by that. It’s harder to sell active strategies today than it was two or five or eight years ago, because I think there’s a greater attitude of skepticism about the ability of active managers to sustain outperformers than would have been there prior to the long career now we’ve had with our performance generally for passive over equity and large cap US equity. So I guess I see us, for our business where we sit today, the balance is far more to the opportunity side in large cap U.S. equities than it is to the risk side. We have a balanced fund. It has a five star rating for all time periods. It’s a top – I believe top deciles performer, certainly a top quintile performer year-to-date one, three, five and ten. It’s an enormous category. Balanced funds don’t go there every month, but there’s a large audience of potential investors for that fund. We can have a much bigger balanced fund than we did today in the $300 million range. There’s no reason that even with the adverse trends in our business that that fund couldn’t be some multiple of its currents size relatively quickly, just by taking share from other managers. Our focused growth opportunity fund, also a strong performer, still relatively early in the slide. I think we hit our five year anniversary sometime in the next year I think, but it’s got very strong performance, focus strategies appeal as a good application of active management, but our industry generally faces – I feel like a pretty huge threat. When I say our industry I really mean active managers in this case from passive. But the threat to Eaton Vance is relatively small, because that threat is greatest in large cap U.S. equity and that is today a pretty small part of our business. When I say that I‘m excluding specialty products like host and funds and exchange funds where we don’t place the normal type of competition like we saw in large cap value for example.

Got it, okay. Thanks for taking my questions.

And there are no further questions at this time. I’ll turn the call back over to Mr. Cataldo.

Great. Thank you for joining us this morning and afternoon and we hope you enjoy the remaining days of summer and we look forward to reporting back to you this fall. Thank you.