Jeff Edwards: We will come out with our balance sheet in our Q. You should expect it to go up, obviously, in light of the earnings results.

Mike Mayo (Deutsche Bank): About risk management, what went wrong and what happened in the last three weeks to wind up with $3 billion of additional charges?

Stan O’Neal: The $3 billion in additional charges is taking a look at the methodology and going through the marking models and coming to a conclusion that is still within the same range that we had before, but it was more appropriate to be at a more conservative end of the range than we had previously indicated. That is where the $3 billion comes from.

Mike Mayo (Deutsche Bank): You mentioned BlackRock value being up $4 billion. Do you have an ownership in Bloomberg?

Stan O’Neal: We are happy with our investment in BlackRock. We want to own this asset for the foreseeable future. We never wanted to decrease our exposure or our ability to participate in the asset management business. We think we have created a way in which we can participate in a much better form and it is our intent to continue to be a part of that and to nurture that investment.

Prashant Bhatia (Citigroup): Can you talk about the process or the methodology of marking the inventory, and how that has changed based on what you have run in this quarter?

Stan O’Neal: It hasn’t changed, we have the same inputs and the range is still the range. It is just that we are at a significantly more conservative end of that range, with the same methodology.

Prashant Bhatia (Citigroup): How does the losses change the risk appetite in the near term? You have a new head of FICC that has been in the business at your firm for a couple of years, you have big losses. What does that do to the risk appetite?

Stan O’Neal: The losses here are outside the parameters of our risk appetite. There were some mistakes made in us having these results. The primary mistakes were errors of judgment and understanding the nature of the risk as the markets were changing for these securities. That has nothing to do with the fundamental appetite for risk.

Our appetite for risk is driven by the need to perform well in the marketplace for our clients. As a consequence of being in these markets, many markets both geographically and product-wise, we have to have the expertise for taking risk. That is a core competency that is required to be successful in this business. We see no scenario under which we would move back from that idea. In other areas of the firm, we take risk on a regular basis in commodities, in our equity business, in parts of leveraged finance. There are many other areas, interest rate trading, FX trading. We will continue to have an appetite in all of those areas. We just got too big in this area.

Michael Hecht (Banc of America Securities): How does the diminished risk appetite affect the new run rate of FICC revenues going forward, and GMI''s business more broadly?

Stan O’Neal: There are a couple of things. One there has been a structural change in market for these structured products, particularly those which have underlying related to mortgages. The whole structural change in the market makes it less of a market opportunity for everyone; for some significant timeframe and perhaps the foreseeable future.

We can generate higher rates of return at more attractive risk/reward ratios away from this business. We intend to and we are in the process of, wherever possible, reallocating balance sheet and risk capital to areas that produce better risk/reward ratios. While it might be true that to some degree, revenues are diminished a bit, we don''t see that as over time diminishing our return capability.

Michael Hecht (Banc of America Securities): You mentioned First Franklin in your remarks and how you had a writedown for intangibles. How should we think about the potential for a writedown of goodwill there?

Jeff Edwards: First Franklin is integrated into our overall business and that is how we evaluate it. There is no impairment appropriate.

Michael Hecht (Banc of America Securities): On GPC, can you talk a little bit about the acceleration and retail flows you are seeing? What do you think is driving that? Does it have more to do with the market or retail investors becoming more active, or more about share gains on the part of Merrill and things you have been doing to reenergize the platform?

Stan O’Neal: The platform is strong and it has been getting stronger year by year and it continues to separate itself from the competition. It is a well-run business and it is a great franchise. We have the best financial advisors and the best product suite and platform to support those financial advisors. Throughout all of this period, the business has continued to perform well both in terms of revenues and profitability, but most importantly, in terms of capturing new clients and bringing in new assets. It is a function of the quality of the business we have and the fact that the issues in the marketplace have been severe in some cases, as we have discussed but they have been isolated.

Jeff Harte (Sandler O’Neill): Can you give some more comfort with your understanding of your current risk loss exposures? How you can feel that you understand your risk exposure, when September 28 marks deteriorated an extra 75% on you after the quarter closed?

Stan O’Neal: It is because we have had some time to do a lot more work and we have reviewed the methodology, we have reviewed the pricing standards, we have reviewed the inputs and we have come to the conclusion that again, within the same range it is appropriate to mark it much more towards the more conservative end of the range.

Jeff Harte (Sandler O’Neill): Looking back at the CDO underwriting franchise, can you give us some idea of what portion of the CDOs you have underwritten have been more to client-specific specifications versus securitizing?