Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Third Quarter 2015 Earnings Teleconference. At this time, all lines are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be given to you at that time. And as a reminder, today's conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Mark Finkelstein. Please go ahead. Alan Mark Finkelstein - Senior Vice President & Head-Investor Relations: Thank you, Cynthia. Good morning, and thank you for joining our call. Representing Prudential on today's call are John Strangfeld, CEO; Mark Grier, Vice Chairman; Charlie Lowrey, Head of International Businesses; Steve Pelletier, Head of Domestic Businesses; Rob Falzon, Chief Financial Officer; and Rob Axel, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer. We will start with prepared comments by John, Mark and Rob, and then we will answer your questions. Today's presentation may include forward-looking statements. It is possible that actual results may differ materially from the predictions we make today. In addition, this presentation may include references to non-GAAP measures. For a reconciliation of such measures to the comparable GAAP measures and a discussion of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, please see the section titled Forward-Looking Statements and Non-GAAP Measure of our earnings press release, which can be found on our website at www.investor.prudential.com. John, I'll hand it over to you. John Robert Strangfeld - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, Mark. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Prudential reported solid third quarter results and we are well on track to achieve the financial objectives we set out for the year. Operating EPS, excluding market driven and discrete items, is $2.52, in line with what we reported last…

Thank you, John. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening. I will take you through our results and then I will turn it over to Rob Falzon, who will cover our capital and liquidity pictures. On slide 2, I'll start with an overview of our financial results for the quarter. On a reported basis, common stock earnings per share amounted to $2.40 for the third quarter, based on after-tax adjusted operating income. This compares to EPS of $2.20 a year ago. After adjusting for market-driven and discrete items in both the current quarter and the year-ago quarter, EPS was essentially flat compared to a year ago, as a few inherently variable items offset business growth and favorable underwriting results. I'll mention a few highlights of our business performance that affected the comparison to a year ago. First, we continued to produce solid business growth in our international life planner business on a constant currency basis, and in our U.S. businesses, including Individual Life, where we have been growing profitable books of universal life and term insurance. And second, we produced solid underwriting results in our U.S. and international insurance protection businesses, including improved experience in group insurance compared to a year ago and favorable case experience in our pension risk transfer business. These benefits were offset by three primary items. One, a lower contribution from net investment results with returns on non-coupon investments below our average expectations in the current quarter. In contrast, in the year-ago quarter, the contribution was well above expectations. Two, higher net expenses in several businesses, and three, less favorable currency exchange rates in international insurance. I would also note that both the current quarter and the year ago quarter benefited from true-ups of our effective tax rates to full year expectations. For the current quarter,…

Certainly. Our first question will come from the line of Jimmy Bhullar with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hi, first a question for Rob on capital. Could you discuss the impact that the drop in interest rates had on your capital position? And then you've talked about – talked in the past about reducing your sensitivity – the sensitivity of capital to interest rates. Maybe go into a little bit of detail on what are some of the things you are doing to do that? Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Okay, Jimmy, so referring back to the – to my introductory remarks, if you think about the capital debt going up by around $600 million, that had two principal components to it. First was the breakage on our hedging within the VA captive. And the second piece of that was largely driven by the interest rate movements during the course of the quarter. If you looked at our capital capacity at the end of the quarter, and you did not adjust for it – you didn't increase our leverage ratio – we would still have had capital capacity above the $3 billion, consistent with the – with what I articulated. So interest rates clearly had an impact during the course of the quarter, but we would characterize it as relatively modest in terms of the overall impact on our capital capacity. I think as we've talked about before, with regard to the sensitivity to interest rates, we think about management of our capital as a – sorry, we think of management of interest rate risk in what you would consider to be normal levels of volatility as something that we would hold capital against. So, you would see some movement in our capital capacity as a result of normal volatility, quarter to quarter, in interest rates. However, what we do is outside of that range of normal volatility, we look to hedge out the risk and think of it as in the tails at (37:29) outcomes for interest rates, such that our capital capacity would be preserved in more extreme outcomes

And on the $600 million that you mentioned, I think the VA hedge breakage was around $200 million, which would imply that the rate impact was less than $0.5 billion, in that neighborhood, right? Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: I'm not sure I'm following your numbers, Jimmy. When you say the VA hedge breakage, you're talking about the hedge target breakage?

Yeah, yeah. Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah, so – well, that was in the – from the $600 million, that hedge breakage was the $200ish million that I deducted from that $600 million. So, the residual $400 million would have been net everything else, interest rates included in there.

Okay. And then just one last question on pension closeout deals, your experience on the deals has been better than what you have, I guess, priced for, and – but there has been a lot of talk about pricing and margins on deals that are being done in Europe and the press and the sort of – some of the articles implied that pricing has gotten aggressive. What's your view on the return potential of the business that you've done in Europe versus what you're doing in the US? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Jimmy, this is Steve. I'll speak to that. We remain very confident about our pricing of these transactions, both in terms of what we've already written and also the experience we are having as we pursue additional transactions. In regard to some of the recent press commentary, I'd give our perspective as follows. We participate as a reinsurer working with primary UK insurers in the longevity business. We see that global market structure as having a couple of key benefits. We think that that market structure provides additional capacity to UK plan sponsors looking to manage longevity risk and we also think that global structure provides additional protection to UK plan participants in terms of the pension promises that have been made to them. So we view this market structure as having a lot of benefits for all parties involved. In terms of the business that we write and how we price it, we apply a very robust economic capital framework that drives our pricing and supports the business with prudent capital standards. We put this framework through significant and continuous stress testing and it's the same model we use for domestic deals. And then finally, I'd just mention something that you've heard from us before, just a reminder that our PRT pricing, both funded and unfunded, does not take into account any enterprise-level benefits around risk diversification or longevity mortality netting. So, like I say, we remain quite confident in our pricing.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Your line is open.

Thank you. My first question was on pension risk transfer. What are the deposit amounts we should expect for Prudential from JCPenney and Philips U.S. in 4Q? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Jay, this is Steve again. I'll cover that. The deposit amounts that will emerge from JCPenney have yet to be determined. That deal is operating on a variable structure. We expect it will be between $0.5 billion and $1.5 billion. Regarding Philips U.S., the total transaction is $1.1 billion. Our share of that will be $450 million. I will also point out that on Philips U.S., we are the account administrator for all retirees and will be receiving additional consideration for providing that service on the entire retiree block.

That's $450 million, not euros, right? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Oh, yes, correct. This is the Philips U.S. business.

Okay. Can you talk about the pipeline for pension risk transfer looking out? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: We feel the pipeline remains, and is, quite solid. I think what we've been seeing over the past year and continue to see, Jay, is that the pipeline is really being driven by secular trends. We are looking at, for example, the updated mortality tables are really having an impact in terms of accentuating awareness of longevity risk and desire to manage it. Also, continuous increasing of PBGC premiums also has an effect. So all of these factors contribute to what we see as a very healthy pipeline going forward.

It's been several years since we've seen a significant jumbo deal come to market for Prudential. Is the pipeline strong for those types of deals as well? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Those obviously are – while PRT inherently is lumpy, those real jumbo deals are even lumpier. So discussions continue, but we'll see what unfolds. In regard to several years, Jay, I would just point out that on the longevity side, at least, we did have a deal that is jumbo by any standard in mid-2014.

Of course. Thank you. Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nigel Dally with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Nigel P. Dally - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Great. Thanks. First, on variable annuities, I would be interested in your views as to how the recent NAIC proposals as it relates to captors may impact you. And then second, in your comments you made the comment that expenses tend to be seasonally higher in the fourth quarter. Any reason to believe the impact this year will be any different, and is it possible to quantify that seasonal impact? Thanks. Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: It's Rob, Nigel. Let me handle the first question. The – with respect to the variable annuities work, first let me step back and go through with you some of the things that we said at Investor Day. We went through the reasons during the course of our presentation as to why we reinsured our VA rider to a captive. Those reasons related to the disconnect between stat accounting and the risk management tools that we use in order – or to manage the rider. Also recall that we hold capital to CTE 97 and that we have reserves in our captives that are almost two times the reserves that would be required – that we would otherwise be required to hold at the seeding company. We're constantly evaluating that construct, making sure that we're managing risk on an economic basis, and in addition to that, we're looking at the implications of that on capital and liquidity, on accounting, both from a statutory and a GAAP standpoint and also on hedging efficiency. So consistent with that objective, we've been, as you can imagine, highly engaged in the conversation with the…

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Seth Weiss with Bank of America. Your line is open.

Hi, thank you. If I could just tag along the question of seasonality. Thinking about the asset management and seasonality that tends to benefit fees in the fourth quarter, how should we think about that in the upcoming quarter, given more volatile equity markets over the course of this year? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Seth, this is Steve. While, again, I wouldn't offer any kind of quantification, we do see incentive fees, for example, being something that is – where there is a seasonal lift in the fourth quarter. Again, that pattern may very well persist. There could be some impact from market volatility, but the nature of that business is such that a fair amount of those fees are realized in the fourth quarter.

Okay. So some of those fees are independent of what happens with market performance or is it purely market performance-based, if we think about how that will eventually come in? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Some will be impacted either directly or indirectly by market volatility, some are largely uncorrelated with equity market volatility at least.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question will come from the line of Eric Bass with Citigroup, your line is open.

Hi, thank you. For individual life, you've consistently had mortality that's been favorable to your expectations the past couple of years, which is in contrast to what we've seen for much of the industry. Can you give any color on where you've seen positive trends? And I think Pru historically was less active in the older age markets. So do you think this could be a factor? Stephen P. Pelletier - Executive Vice President & COO-US Business Unit: Erik, this is Steve. I think that we are seeing our positive mortality trends in – pretty much across our book of business, both in terms of legacy Prudential and legacy Hartford business and in different age bands. So, it's been a fairly comprehensive experience and it's also been contributed to both in terms of severity and incidents. So I wouldn't attribute it to any particular pockets. I would just also point out that we do continuously adjust our expectations. So, the variances that we are speaking about above our expectations are variations above a bar that we do continue to raise on a very gradual basis. So, we are pleased with the performance of the book and having said that, inherently this can be something that is variable. And we don't take that into our run rate, and we do regularly call it out for your modeling purposes.

Got it. Thank you for the color. And then, just quickly on Habitat. Do you have any update on that transaction and potential timing for closing?

Yeah, the acquisition is pending with regulators. And we and our prospective partners continue to work through the process with regulators and look forward to closing the transaction obviously as quickly as possible, which we estimate to be either later this year or in the first quarter of next year.

Okay. Thank you.

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

Thanks, good morning. A question about Japan. I guess, at some point in mid-September, there were some news about the standard mortality table in Japan changing and what that could have – that that could have a negative impact, excuse me, on some of the mortality margins that are built into the life insurance products in that country. Can you, Charlie, give us your thoughts on that? Charlie F. Lowrey - Chief Operating Officer-International & EVP: Yeah. I think we look at underwriting very carefully as we do pricing and we take all of that into account as obviously as best we can and put that into what we think of as a differentiated distribution model, and work with our clients in order to come up with the best products that we can on their behalf. So, if I can, let me take a little bit of a step back and tell you about the process and hopefully that gets a little bit to your question. We think we have very much of a differentiated distribution model, as well as – and this gets a little bit to what you are talking about as well, product selection and product mix. And we apply disciplined execution to that. So, let me go through each of these just a little bit, and hopefully help answer your question. But, we operate a proprietary distribution, or tied agency system, based on the quality of both of the life planners and the life plan consultants. This has been the base of our business since it was formed and for over a quarter of a century, we have been doing business in this way, providing the highest quality service to our customers over the lifetime, over their lifetime. And this isn't an inexpensive model to operate.…

Okay. So just to paraphrase, I guess, you are saying that your model is adaptable if we get some new mortality tables, or frankly, anything that comes down the pike, that you will make the necessary adjustments to maintain your profitability target? Charlie F. Lowrey - Chief Operating Officer-International & EVP: Oh, you bet. We absolutely do that. I mean, we reprice our fixed annuities every other week. And you've seen us, I think, make the changes necessary, in terms of either lowering commissions or increasing products, either increasing pricing or in fact, just discontinuing sales if we can't make it work. So, we're going to protect our margins and you can see that in the ROEs we generate over time and the low level of volatility that this business is – has displayed for well over a decade.

Got it. And then just the last one for, I guess, either Mark or Rob. So, I'm looking at this page 11 in your supplement and you have this roughly $8 billion of operating debt which I think you kind of reclassify as needed, based on your capital requirements changing. Is there a limitation in terms of how much of this $8 billion number could get reclassified as operating debt? Because it's tied to some assets or something like that; it's already being – it's already funding some asset? Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: I think you mean get reclassified from operating to capital debt? Is that what you're asking, Suneet?

Yeah. I might have said it the other way around, but I think you get my drift. Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah, so it's currently classified as operating. Yeah, the amount of that, of borrowings that we have, that is – that's backing – operating debt that's backing cash is close to $2.5 billion, so that amount could be sitting in cash and could be used for capital purposes should we need it.

Okay. But anything above that, that's sitting in this operating debt, is already funding something and so it could not be reclassified? Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. And most of that is for purposes of our captive financing AXXX financing in our life captives.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Krueger with KBW. Your line is open. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Hi, thanks. Good morning. The life planner count in Japan has been picking up a lot this year. Can you give us some underlying color on the dynamics there? Charlie F. Lowrey - Chief Operating Officer-International & EVP: Sure, I'm happy to. It's up 6%. This is a new record in Japan, and it really pertains to a couple of things. On the face of it, it's a higher number of sales managers. But let me just go through the three ins and outs, because I think this will give some clarification. First of all, the three ins and outs that can take place, the first ones are recruits versus terminations. And we had a stronger – we had strong recruits and lower terminations this quarter. So, that was a good factor. Secondly is the process of turning life planners into sales managers. And over the past two years, we have added 54 new sales managers. Now, initially when you do that, as you saw last year in the spring, that lowers the LP count. But then theoretically adds to the LP count later, because a sales manager's job is obviously to recruit, develop, and retain LPs. And the new sales managers tend to recruit more than existing sales managers, who already manage a group of LPs. So, we expected the increase in sales managers to help LP recruiting in the future. And that's exactly what happened. We said – there's always a lag effect, right? So, it usually takes about a year for the new sales managers to begin to really recruit and gear up. And when we recruited a large number of…

And that will be from the line of Tom Gallagher with Credit Suisse. Your line is open. Thomas George Gallagher - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Thanks. The question I had is on – if I look at the yen hedge guidance you just gave us for 2016, 106, that's about a 15%, 16% depreciation versus prior year, so a fairly sizable headwind. And if I recall correctly, the discussion about the yen capital hedge, which currently, I think you said is a $2 billion gain, was put in place to preserve some of that earnings power that you may otherwise lose. So can we assume that you're going to look to monetize and utilize some of that $2 billion to offset some of this headwind or is that just a much longer term structure that we should be thinking about and not something that's going to offset the 2016 impact? Robert F. Falzon - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: So Tom, it's Rob. Let me take two pieces of that. First, with regard to earnings impact, remember, when you take those percentages that you have to apply that just to the yen component of our earnings. And so just by way of example, if it's kind of helpful to (64:11) that if we applied the 106 to this year – this quarter's results, it would have resulted in about a 2% dilution or about $0.06 a share. So just to kind of give you a benchmark for the impact of that change in the plan rate. The second question with regard to the yen equity hedge, what you stated is absolutely correct. That hedge is both designed and calibrated so that over time the gains from the hedge can be used to offset any dilution in…

Thank you. And, ladies and gentlemen, today's teleconference will be available for replay after 1:30 p.m. today until midnight November 12. You may access the AT&T teleconference replay system by dialing 1-800-475-6701 and entering the access code of 349037. International participants may dial 320-365-3844. Those numbers once again, 1-800-475-6701 or 320-365-3844 and enter the access code of 349037. That does conclude your teleconference for today. Thank you for your participation and for using AT&T Executive Teleconference service. You may now disconnect.