Michael Hecht (Banc of America Securities): On the asset management side, the revenues, margins, and flows are strong across the board. Where are you seeing weaker areas of performance, and what you are doing, or can do to turn that around?

David Sidwell: It depends to the extent that you have the offering that you have in performance. We have seen a couple of our larger funds under perform and as a result that impacts the overall percentages. One or two large funds drive that number. It is based on the strategy of those funds.

Michael Hecht (Banc of America Securities): With comparable expense overall up 35% year-to-date versus the 29% increase in top line, do you have any thoughts on whether you may see a comparable accrual similar to last year in the fourth quarter?

David Sidwell: All of the accounting noise around 123-R is behind us. The year-to-date rates do avoid some of the quarterly noise and we do try every quarter to base the accrual on our expectation for the full year. Things can change, but our current compensation reflects what is our best estimate as of this date as to our compensation.

Douglas Sipkin (Wachovia): Are you still seeking to grow the alternative business via acquisition if the right opportunity presents itself as it relates to asset management?

David Sidwell: We at this point feel pleased with the investments we made in this business, whether it is FrontPoint or the other acquisitions that we did to broaden our offering. The fact that we now have over $100 billion of the assets under management in alternatives, which also includes our real estate offering, is something that we feel good about. We think this is an important asset class. We were under-represented and needed to increase it. We will continue to do what we have been doing. We will look for opportunities across a number of our businesses to jump start or accelerate the pace of growth by acquisition and alternatives fit that bill as much as anything. My major point is we got a lot done in 2007 and 2006, and it is already, in our view, having a positive impact.

Douglas Sipkin (Wachovia): Are there any benefits from a firm standpoint you are realizing with the absence of Discover, like more synergy or focus in certain businesses, or anything like that that you could point to as part of the rationale for spinning out the business?

David Sidwell: We are seeing exactly the reasons that we said we should do this, Morgan Stanley, that we are focused on what we need to do to build the securities business, and at a time like this third quarter, it was clear we could stay extremely focused on those things we needed to get done, and presumably Discover can do the same. That was a large part of the rationale, and from sitting in Morgan Stanley, the logic has made sense.

Guy Moszkowski (Merrill Lynch): You alluded to the fact that the $940 million in net writedowns to the loan part of the business was essentially not offset by hedges. You also talked about around a $1 billion reduction in sequential quarters in revenues in the fixed income business. What the gross and net there would have been with respect to hedging?

David Sidwell: When you think about those businesses, whether it is the core business, the residential or commercial mortgage business, we are a significant participant. We use a number of instruments in our trading strategies, which would include strategies with our clients. Those would include both cash instruments and derivative instruments, and overall the point we were trying to make that we may enter into transactions which we view as part of an economic hedge of some positions in those trading books, and that the relationships of these instruments behaved in a way that was impacted considerably by what was going on in the marketplace, which is part of why we had a less successful quarter in this business than we had compared with the second quarter when we had a record.

Guy Moszkowski (Merrill Lynch): Could you talk about the timing differences between big economic hedges that you might have had which might have shown up as positives during the first half of the year and mark-to-market on underlying, which may have affected the third quarter more?

David Sidwell: No, because we are a mark-to-market shop so each quarter reflects that. We did get a big benefit from our trading activity in the residential mortgage business in the first quarter; we also said in the second quarter that the business overall was much lower revenues compared with the first quarter. We do mark-to-market all our positions in this business, so every quarter stands on its own legs.

Guy Moszkowski (Merrill Lynch): The clearance costs popped dramatically. Was there some increase there that was driven by a mix shift, and what was trading?

David Sidwell: The top line is that it was just driven by high volumes across a number of products. In terms of the efficiency or the cost per trade, we try to be as efficient with the suppliers of those services to us as we can. If you look over time this is a line that has been growing reflecting the increase in volumes, and we saw huge volumes in our equities business in August.

Meredith Whitney (CIBC World Markets): Can you give some historical perspective on the quantitative strategies issues, as to when the last time you have made note of this in terms of it being material over the years?

David Sidwell: This is a number of strategies in our equities business on a number of debts. Many of these businesses have been around for many years. Over time it has been a profitable business for us and to the extent in any one quarter, it has driven trading results to be something that we should know, we do refer to that. It just in any one period has not been so large.

Meredith Whitney (CIBC World Markets): When was the last time that you made note of it either positively or negatively in a quarterly release or in a quarterly conference call?

David Sidwell: In the first quarter we highlighted it as an issue. This has not been a business that has had overall losses in the last couple of years.

Bill Tanona (Goldman Sachs): In the Fixed Income revenues for this quarter, you have got $2.2 billion but in your reference, you were talking about the credit revenues going from 1.3 to 260. Does that include the writedowns for the leveraged loans which is not incorporated in that fixed income number?

David Sidwell: It does not.

Bill Tanona (Goldman Sachs): The commodities business was down 12%. What happened there?

David Sidwell: There is nothing of note. The structured business was consistent, and then trading was weaker, but there is nothing of note. In any of these businesses quarter by quarter you are going to get ups and downs in the normal range.

Bill Tanona (Goldman Sachs): In terms of the 390 related to FAS 157 and 159, how did you decide what to allocate to fixed income and what to allocate to equities?

David Sidwell: These are notes which basically support our client activity, so we know which notes are equity linked, and we know which ones are fixed income including commodity linked, so we can do it based on deal by deal, which gets allocated by each business. It is not done based on a broad allocation method.

Bill Tanona (Goldman Sachs): In global wealth management you had some benefit from insurance recoveries related to litigation settlements. What would the margin have been in that business, or what was that benefit in global wealth Management this quarter?

David Sidwell: It was not that big of a deal. Outside of that you did see quarter on quarter, if we had not had the insurance settlement our non-comparables would have been higher in this business, but this is a business where James is very focused on managing the margin and the expense base, so if you actually look over time, the non-comparables have been reasonably consistent driven sometimes by the litigation reserve.