Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience in standing by and welcome to the Prudential Second Quarter of 2018 Earnings Call. At this time, all of your participant phone lines are in a listen-only mode and later there will be an opportunity here for your questions. Just a brief reminder, today's conference is being recorded, and I would now like to turn the conference over to Head of Investor Relations, Darin Arita.

Thank you, Justin. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Representing Prudential on today's call are John Strangfeld, Chairman and 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, Principal Accounting Officer. We will start with prepared comments by John, Mark and Rob, and then we will take 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 Measures of the materials for today's presentation. These can be found on our website at investor.prudential.com. You will notice that we made changes to the format of our slide presentation. We hope this provides you with more color on the strategic direction of our company and the key priorities of our businesses. Also, as a reminder, we will be hosting an Investor Day in Tokyo on the morning of September 27. The focus will be on our international businesses with an emphasis on Japan. We hope that you will be able to join us. And with that, let's turn to slide 2 and I will hand it over to John.

Thank you, Darin. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We are pleased with the momentum of our business in the first half of the year. We continue to bring financial opportunity to more and more customers around the world in new, exciting and compelling ways. I will expand on our U.S. financial wellness initiative in a few moments. We generated an attractive operating return on equity and double-digit growth in both adjusted earnings per share and adjusted book value per share. And with our strong capital position, we returned approximately $760 million to shareholders; as well, significantly strengthened our Long-Term Care reserves. We expect to continue a robust level of capital return and to utilize the remaining $750 million of our share repurchase authorization by the end of the year. Turning to slide 3, I will provide some additional financial highlights on the second quarter. We produced an annualized operating return on equity of 13.5%, which was above our near to intermediate-term objective of 12% to 13%. Our second quarter adjusted earnings per share of $3.01 grew significantly from the prior year. This increase was driven by growth in the business, tax reform, and assumption updates. Adjusting for notable items, earnings per share grew 16%. Our current quarter net income was also affected primarily by the significant strengthening of our Long-Term Care reserves, as I noted earlier. Rob Falzon will discuss this in more detail. Our adjusted book value per share of $92.60 is up 14% over the prior year. This increase reflects the earnings we generated as well as the impact of tax reform and accounting changes at the start of 2018. Partially offsetting these items were the payment of $3.30 per share of common stock dividends and about $1.4 billion of share repurchases over the…

Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. Thank you, John. I'll be going through comments on each of our businesses in a few minutes, but let me start off by reminding you that we've often talked about ourselves as a very good story around developing thoughtful strategies, executing well, building good business fundamentals, and realizing attractive financial results. And, in fact, we often start our earnings calls by talking about the attractive business fundamentals reflected in sales and flows, for example, that we're experiencing in our businesses So, under that umbrella of the themes, strategy, execution, fundamentals, and results, I'm going to make a few comments on each of our businesses. I won't be going through that whole equation for everything we do everywhere, but there are things that are worth highlighting in the context of each of our businesses. Before I get into a business-by-business discussion, though, let me mention a few common themes that run across our businesses, and these are themes that are not necessarily so visible. These are things that are in the heart of our execution processes that are making differences to us in our markets and with our clients. The first common theme, and it's part of a lot of what John talked about, is the notion of enhancing our value propositions. And the practical consequence of that is that we are able to compete on a basis other than just price because of the attraction of the value proposition that we've put in front of our clients. Importantly, this is not a theoretical aspiration for us. We're seeing real results in the marketplace, reflecting differentiation and reflecting the attraction of a value proposition that goes beyond price competition. The second common theme that runs across our businesses relates to what we're doing to…

Thanks, Mark. I'm going to pick it up beginning on slide 12 by highlighting the notable items which have impacted the current quarter adjusted operating results. We have combined what we previously called market driven and discrete items with trend considerations into a single list of notable items. These items consist of the impact on results from our annual reviews, including assumption updates and other refinements, the quarterly updated estimate of Individual Annuities profitability driven by market performance, and the impact attributable to variances from our expectations for selected variable revenues and expenses. We highlight these items because their contribution to current quarter results may not be indicative of future performance. This year's Actuarial review included economic and insurance assumption updates and other refinements and resulted in a net unfavorable pre-tax adjusted operating income impact of $160 million on our ongoing businesses. We expect no meaningful change to our run rate earnings across our businesses from these updates and refinements. Current quarter returns on non-coupon investments and prepayment fees were about $10 million below our long-term expectations. In addition, the current quarter underwriting experience was approximately $85 million better than our average expectations, including favorable pension risk transfer case experience in Retirement. And finally, our Group Insurance business incurred elevated expenses in the current quarter, including the costs to terminate a third-party underwriting service provider contract. These services will be performed internally, which should reduce future underwriting costs. In total, these notable items reduced earnings by $102 million, or $0.19 per share. Excluding these notable items, earnings per share would be $3.20, up 16% from the year-ago quarter. Turning now to slide 13, I'll spend a few minutes discussing our Long-Term Care business. We entered the Long-Term Care business in the 1990s and actually issued our first individual Long-Term Care…

Thank you. First we'll go to the line of John Nadel of UBS. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. So, this has been a long day and there's a lot going on. I guess the first question I have is, when I think about the morbidity improvement and the removal of that assumption from your Long-Term Care reserves, was that something that was an internally-motivated decision? Or was there any external influence on that decision, whether from regulatory bodies or rating agencies or any other constituents?

John, it's Rob. That decision was entirely an internally-motivated decision. It was done with the benefit of consulting with industry experts and others in the industry from which we were able to glean insights as to trends that were occurring within the industry, but was not done in reaction to any regulatory stimulus. Sort of, if I expand on that a little bit, perhaps, and perhaps a little redundant with what I might have said in my opening remarks, but we discontinued the business back in 2012 and we took a $700 million strengthening of our reserves at that point in time. As I mentioned, we incorporated our reserve estimates for the morbidity improvement, which means people living healthier, which reduced our required reserves, as well as mortality improvement, which meant that people living longer, which conversely increases our reserves.

Yes.

Given the lack of the statistically significant experience in our book at that point in time, we relied on guidance from consultants, academic research, and industry practice. Since then, neither our experience, which has now, has sort of more statistical significance associated with it, or any of that consultation or survey with industry has indicated that there's been any morbidity improvement trend. So, at the same time, we're seeing the mortality improvements in this business and in other businesses.

Yes.

So, based on that, we elected to – based on looking at that data and that industry experience, we elected to remove the morbidity improvement assumption, and that gave rise to that $1.4 billion charge while maintaining the mortality improvement assumption. And as I indicated in my remarks, that's about an $850 million addition to reserves – or attribution to reserves as a part of our assumption update process. Recognizing that that's a more conservative approach that others in the industry have taken, but it's consistent with our updated view of best estimate.

Got you. And that's really helpful. I really appreciate that. And then, just second, or following up on that, does that change apply to both the Individual and the Group Long-Term Care block? Did you have that assumption in both places? And if so, can you give us an estimate on how to allocate that piece of it?

So, yes, the assumption was – pertain to both blocks of business, Group and Individual, in the old assumption and in the update. So, it's been removed by both. The impact on either of those blocks in any given assumption, actually, is going to be variable, so there's not a consistent rule of thumb that you can use. With regard to this particular assumption, John, roughly what I would say is about 60% of it would have been driven from the Individual block and about 40% of it from the Group block.

Okay. And then, just one quick follow-up on an actual business question. Within Investment Management, or PGIM, results really stepped up in terms of the pre-tax operating income contribution. Looks like that was – I mean, revenues were sort of in line. You continue to grow very nicely. It looked like the biggest part of it – the biggest driver of the jump was the reduction in expense or spending. Is that sustainable? And if so, sort of what's driving that? Is it just sort of the runoff of some of the investment spending you've been making?

John, this is Steve. I'll address your question. There's going to be some variability in relation to timing of expenses. For example, on a sequential quarter, our first quarter expenses would ordinarily be elevated by how we account for our long-term incentive compensation in the Asset Management business. And you're not seeing that show up in the same way in the second quarter. Also, as you note, looking at a longer-term time trend, some of the investments that we've been making in the business are reaching maturity and are yielding very, very significant benefits. But I would say that the main drivers, looking at a year timeframe or a multi-year timeframe in the Asset Management business and the growth in earnings there, have been continuing to attract very strong and robust flows, attracting those flows into areas where we already have existing strategies; so, therefore, we're able to onboard the flows in a very effective way and expand our margins and our ability that we've spoken about before, which we think is pretty distinctive in the industry, to maintain a stable average fee structure across the entire book of business at about 22 basis points. So, all of those factors, together, we see as really being the underpinning of positive earnings flow – positive earnings trends in PGIM.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have the line of Tom Gallagher of Evercore. Your line is open.

Good morning. Hey, Rob, first just to follow-up to John's question, the – removing the morbidity improvement assumption with only 2% of your book now on claim, I mean, do you really have enough experience in terms of your own data to make that – to see that you're not seeing the emergence of morbidity improvement, or did you have to rely pretty heavily for that assumption change on the third-party consulting advice as well? Or was it a mix? Or – any help on that would be appreciated.

Yeah, so Tom, I would say it was a balance between the two. I would say when we initially took this, we had very little experience. We've now got five, six years' worth of experience that statistically you would call significant. As we look at that data, there's noise. And it clearly – as you would think given it still is a relatively shorter measurement period and, as we indicated, the number of claims that we have is relatively small to the overall book and to the population of claimants that are across the industry. So, we complemented that with looking externally and talking with consultants that we know have insights into what's happening across the industry to confirm that what we're seeing isn't any different than what others are experiencing across the industry. And based on what we got from those conversations and looking at our own book, felt that there was no discernible trend toward morbidity change. And so, our best estimate, therefore, recognizing that it could go either way, so something that you're trying to get as a mid-point is that there is no morbidity improvement occurring in our book or across the industry that would cause us to think that our book would ultimately behave in a different way than it has been. And let me – if you don't mind, let me just sort of add on just some sort of further thoughts on that. I think that this was, as we noted, it was somewhat unusual vis-a-vis peers in the industry. We recognize that. But – and while the charge associated with it, at $1.4 billion, is in excess, I think, of what Street expectations might have been as we were beginning to look at this – but, I would emphasize that we have a very strong capital position and it is largely unaffected by our across-the-board second quarter assumption updates. We continue to have the flexibility to finance our growth, including investments in our new business initiatives, while redeploying capital, including as I mentioned in my opening remarks, to our shareholders through dividends and stock repurchases, completely consistent with our existing plans. And all of that, incidentally, includes absorbing fully the impact of the Tax Act while maintaining our targeted AA solvency ratios, currently still at a 400% FICO ratio and remaining within our targets for liquidity and leverage as well.

Thanks for that. And then, just a question about the trends you're seeing in the Long-Term Care block. I know, in 2017, there was sort of this spike in incurred claims up around 50%. Has that trend continued into 2018? Was that also part of the upsizing of the charge here or has that calmed down in terms of the actual trend?

So, let me try taking a stab at that this way, Tom. When we did our assumptions, our assumptions now reflect our full historical experience through 2017. And based on that, our actual to expected is running at 100% over that period of time. And as we look at our 2018 experience as it's emerging, it is entirely consistent with those revised set of assumptions. And so, you sort of think about that as an average over that period of time, and 2018 being reflective of what that average is, recognizing that in any given period, be it quarter or year, you can get noise as we've expressed we saw during 2017.

Thanks. And then, just one other quick one. Did you – the statutory charge you took, the $600 million...

Yeah.

Did that – was that just on claim reserves or did you adjust active life reserves at all?

There was a – well, the – no, that was the ALR. That was the active life reserve adjustment, Tom. So, the $600 million, there was small adjustments in GAAP and stat for the Disabled Life, the claims. The driver in both statutory and in GAAP was on our active life reserve. The $600 million was significantly less than the GAAP reserve because we had more margins in our reserves on a statutory basis relative to GAAP. But the same set of assumptions are used in the adjustments that we made in GAAP and stat, with the only difference being that stat – that you can see in the total reserves, they're slightly larger as a result of the pads that you have in stat relative to our GAAP results.

Okay. Thanks.

Next, we have the line of Suneet Kamath of Citi. Your line is open.

Thanks. Just wanted to go back to the morbidity improvement, that you've removed the 1% assumption. But could that go the other way? In other words, if claims costs go up by 1% over 20 years, would that essentially, based on your sensitivities, require another $1.4 billion of reserves?

So, let me try, Suneet, to answer that question this way. We removed the morbidity improvement assumption, as you indicated. We did provide to you sensitivities with regard to claims costs. And so, if you think about the potential variability in our claims costs, we said a reasonable sort of stressed kind of sensitivity around that, we put in there at plus or minus 5%. So, if our assumptions are that morbidity improvement – not only is there not morbidity improvement, but that we experienced some level of morbidity deterioration, if there was a 5% deterioration – not a 5% per year for forever, but a 5% holistic deterioration in that, that would be about a $500 million adjustment to our reserves, recognizing over the fullness of time with health innovation, et cetera, there might be an upward bias to that; but, if it were to be downward, that would be the order of magnitude to that. And we've provided similar assumptions to the – across the rest of what we believe to be the primary drivers to the reserves that we hold for this business. And I think I would characterize what we've done and the sensitivities being provided there, Suneet in the following way. One, it is comprehensive. And so, we've looked holistically at all the assumptions underlying our business and tried to reflect in those assumptions the experience that we've been seeing and what we can glean from what's happening across the industry. The – our desire was to put this issue to bed in the eyes of investors and to allow investors to focus on the strong fundamental and growth that we have in our operating businesses.

Okay. Got it. And then, just on the same Slide 21, if we look at the $1 billion of future rate increases assumed in your reserves, so is that the same number for GAAP and stat? And separately, what was the prior assumption? In other words, what did you have built in before you did your second quarter of 2018 reserve review in terms of benefit from future reaction?

So, first part of your question, yes, the same assumption being used in both GAAP and statutory reserves, as I'd indicated before. Second question, let me try approaching that a little differently, Suneet, to see if I can actually get at what I think you want to understand with respect to that $1 billion. Think about that as being in three tranches. The first is – about 10% of that we've already filed before. First, actually, let me also start with – put that in the context of we've actually already received about $0.9 billion worth of rate increases on this block over time from the point at which we impaired it back in 2012. So, hopefully that adds some perspective in terms of balancing this $1 billion against almost $1 billion that we've already achieved to date. And the assumptions driving this – the $1 billion that we have in there, are consistent with our experience in the first rounds of price increases that we sought and, incidentally, are subject to very robust underwriting in order to quantify that number to begin with. And so, going back to sort of thinking about those in buckets, 10% that's already been filed. About 30% of that actually represents instances where we've already had filings with the states where we've implemented a price increase, but where the – where we have agreed to come back to the state and do it in multiple steps as opposed to do it in a single rate increase. So, we implemented a rate increase, but we've agreed to come back and seek approval for a further rate increase in order to make it a more palatable outcome for consumers at the end of the day. And then, the remaining 60% would be new filings. And within those new filings, I would – that would represent both some of our legacy adverse experience that we've had as well as the new adverse experience that we updated as a result of this update. And think about that as being roughly evenly split between where we expect to get price increases and where we expect to actually – to come out in the form of benefit reductions in lieu of price increases.

Got it. And then, just lastly on the same topic, the assumption to get rid of the morbidity improvement, I mean, it seems like that's what your third-party actuarial consultants are recommending as a best practice, right? And I'm assuming – just trying to think through where the ranges of these assumptions are across different companies.

Well, to be very clear, Suneet, we did not engage any consultants in the evaluation and the process that we went through. We consulted with outside parties, but there's no consultant that recommended to us this as a best estimate. Obviously, our accountants, who have actuarial expertise, have weighed in on this and they have confirmed that they believe that our approach to this is a reasonable approach to take with regard to establishing a best estimate.

Okay. Thanks, Rob.

Next, we have the line of Alex Scott of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Alex Scott - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Hi. So, my question is around just the cash flows. And, Rob, I think you mentioned that you absorbed – you were able to absorb a good amount here and still had the ability to kind of maintain the capital deployment plans. So, could you talk about what is driving – what are the parts of the business that are driving better free cash flow? And as we kind of think out to next year and beyond, I mean, is there upside as maybe you have some of these things that have been a drag fall away and kind of have continued acceleration in cash in some of the businesses, like Variable Annuities and maybe others?

So, Alex, yeah, a couple of thoughts on that. First, as I mentioned before, we start from a position of having a very robust capital structure that's able to absorb a lot of the changes that are going through in the industry. So, you have the 2Q assumption updates that we've been through. You have the impact of the tax law change. You'll also have certain regulatory changes occurring that are occurring at the NAIC that are, I think, net chewing away at the RBC ratios of companies. And despite all of that, where we are at the end of the day is, pro forma for all of it, including sort of the full-year anticipated impacts of the Tax Act, we're able to maintain above our currently targeted RBC ratio of 400%. So, we start out in a very strong position. We also have the benefit of continuing to generate strong cash flow and capital. And so, in the course of the second quarter, just by way of example, while the statutory charge for our Long-Term Care business was – the increase and the strengthening of reserves in our Long-Term Care business was about $600 million. In other parts of RBC calculation, we actually generated incremental capital that almost entirely offset that reserve strengthening. And we see that dynamic. And so, if you look at sort of the fullness of this year and even what we've experienced to-date this year, what you're going to find is we have diversified businesses each of which provide robust cash flow and diversified sources of cash flow. So, in the current year, while we're strengthening PICA's reserves in order to respond to the impact from the tax law changes, we are getting from our International business significant free cash flow. We are getting from our PGIM business a very high free cash-flow ratio relevant to the strong earnings that we're generating from that. And as we've highlighted in the deck through the bar charts that we provided, our Annuities business at the current levels of sales is throwing off a significantly high level of free cash flow. And so, we're able to continue to generate free cash flow through the portfolio of businesses that we have and absorb the variety of reserve-strengthening initiatives that we and the industry are facing during the course of this year. Alex Scott - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: That's very helpful. Thank you. And then, maybe just to follow-up on the 12% to 13% ROE. How should I think about that near to intermediate-term ROE just in light of maybe the move up in interest rates and sort of the environment? I mean, are we at a point where maybe you could sort of revert back to the 13% to 14% that you guys have targeted historically? Or sort of where do we need to get in terms of rates to achieve that?

Well, I think about it this way. I think, first, as you've seen in our results and observe in the market, interest rates have been rising and that's been beneficial to us and to others in the industry. If you look at what I'll call our adjusted portfolio yields, so adjusting it for taking out the impact of alternatives and for where we've invested in Treasuries as we've waited to take the premiums and reinvest them into Corporates, in the first quarter, our portfolio yield was about 4.3%. If you look at our new money rates in the first quarter, it was about 4.25%. So, we're at the point in time, now, where we're investing is crossing over to our portfolio rate, whereas in the past you would have seen a very large gap between those two numbers. And so, I think the interest rate environment is rapidly ceasing to be a drag and will be pivoting over toward being actually a positive to earnings growth on a go-forward basis. Now, it took a compounding of several years for it to drag us down from 13% to 14% to our intermediate range of 12% to 13%, and we'll need to see some compounded period of being in that better interest rate environment before you'd expect, on a sustainable basis, our ROE to be in a 13% to 14% range. I would note that if you look at our ROE this quarter, on the sort of – adjusted for the notable items that we've called out, it's 13.5%. So, while we provided guidance of 12% to 13%, the reality is, in this current environment with the robust performance we're getting out of our businesses, we are actually exceeding that range that we've provided. Alex Scott - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Perfect. Thanks.

And next, we have the line of Ryan Krueger of KBW. Your line is open. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Hi. Good morning. On the annuity ROA, it's been 121 basis points for the last two quarters. How much more near-term downside do you expect from the additional hedging actions, or are we mostly complete with that at this point?

Ryan, this is Steve. Maybe I'll jump in and Rob can add on. If you look at Annuities ROA on a year-over-year basis, there was a decline. I'd attribute that to three factors, consistent with what we've spoken about before: first, lower non-coupon earnings driving lower spread results; second, the aging of the book of business and fee compression that gradually results from that; and finally, amortization of hedging costs, as you mentioned. The first of those three factors varies from quarter to quarter. The second and the third, I would say – there are, obviously, real impacts, but they emerge very, very gradually over time, over an extended time period. So, if you're talking about near-term ROAs, I would say there's sustainability of our ROAs for the near term at our current level. Rob?

The only thing I'd add to that – and, Ryan, this may be obvious by virtue of how you asked the question, but just to make sure that it's very clear is that our expected hedging costs are entirely in AOI today. And so, that's built into our AOI. We include the cost of hedging in that. Secondly, that when we have variances against that expected hedging, so what we call hedge breakage, that works its way into our benefit ratios and, therefore, also is amortized into our AOI. So, full cost of hedging is reflected in AOI over time. And that hedge experience has been generally on the positive side, but call it around neutral. And what you're seeing as a result of that is still a robust level of ROA, as Steve just walked through. Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Thanks. And then, the Corporate segment, I know, is volatile, but it's been pretty favorable for a couple of quarters. Has anything changed there or should we expect it to revert back to a higher loss over time?

So, our guidance for that, Ryan, has been that – think about it as being – and what we said in the past is an average of $350 million a quarter, subject to seasonality. So, obviously, we get the fourth quarter seasonality that we've walked through a number of times in the past. If you look at the actual average of the last four quarters, it's been slightly below that. So, it averages out around $340 million. And in the first and second quarters driving that because they've been below our run-rate expectations. Each of those quarters benefited by somewhere in the range of $15 million to $20 million of lower than expected compensation costs, both long-term and deferred, that are associated with market experience including, incidentally, our own stock price performance. The remainder of the variance came from lower net expenses across sort of a whole variety of activities. So, I think, while that experience – we can – it can be sustained, we don't believe that that experience would change our view going forward of what the run rate and seasonality would be. So, we've benefited from it, but not to the point where we would take a different view toward what we've stated in the past with regard to sort of the going forward run rate of the business (57:35). Ryan Krueger - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.: Got it. Thanks a lot.

Okay.

And our last question comes from the line of Erik Bass of Autonomous Research. Your line is open.

Hi, thank you. I guess, following up on Alex's question, if we look at the dividends paid from PALAC year-to-date, it's been about 70% to 75% of AOI. So is this a reasonable way to think about the sustainable cash generation of the Annuities business, and how sensitive is this to the level of sales volumes?

So, I would say that the Annuities business is a positive contributor to our overall targeted free cash flow. So, think about our free cash flow, as we've articulated, as being around 65% of our earnings. And at current levels of sales we would expect the Annuities business actually to be reasonably materially in excess of that; and, we believe that that's a sustainable level. The volatility – we don't believe that it's particularly volatile on a go forward basis, either. The changes that would occur there would be, as Steve has expressed before, things that would be reflected over a fairly long period of time. We're very well capitalized within that business, and so changes in market conditions and/or other drivers to the reserves would not alter the level of distributions from free cash flow that we anticipate and are currently getting from the business.

Thank you. And then, yesterday, Fidelity got a fair amount of press coverage for eliminating fees on certain of its index products. Do you see this having implications for pricing in the Asset Management or Defined Contribution retirement businesses more broadly?

Erik, it's Steve. I'll address your question. For some time, we've been very acutely aware of the fact that the most rapid fee compression in the Asset Management business has really been taking place over multiple years within the passive space. And you saw the press coverage yesterday referring to yesterday's move as the race to zero and this being the logical conclusion of it. It's a race that we're not participating in. Several years ago, we made the strategic decision that we were going to – that we were not going to compete in the passive space. But even back then, it was a space well-spoken for by a handful of competitors. And instead, we would focus on the long-standing value proposition of our Investment Management business, which is alpha generation, alpha that our clients can use alongside the index exposure that they can draw from passive managers on a cost-effective basis; but, really focusing on our ability to generate alpha through active management. And the result of that decision, over multiple years, has been that passive assets represent less than 2% of total AUM and well under 1% of total fees. Our fees are based on our generation of alpha, based on the foundation of strong investment performance and strong distribution capabilities, generating attractive flows at stable fee levels, that 22 basis points I mentioned, which has been stable for us now over an extended period of time. And we expect it to remain so.

Thank you. Appreciate the comments.

At this point, I'll be happy to turn it back to John Strangfeld for any closing remarks

Thank you very much. I'd just like to bring this back and close it with just a few final thoughts. Bottom line of this whole discussion is our businesses are performing very well. They're supported by a strong balance sheet. We're very confident in our ability to both innovate and execute. And we – our talented employees who embody our purpose-driven culture are ultimately at the core of who we are and what we do. And collectively, we deliver sustainable value for our customers, our community, and our stakeholders. And I'd like to thank you very much for your time and attention today. And have a good day.

Ladies and gentlemen still connected, that does conclude the presentation for this morning. Again, we thank you very much for your participation and using our Executive TeleConference Service. You may now disconnect.