Guy Moszkowski (Merrill Lynch): What happened in the asset management unit with the SIV charges and what the interrelationship might or might not be between the SIV holding issues there and the net out close to your liquidity products?

John Mack: I do not think that out flows are related. We talk about the SIV exposure. On this currently $7.7 billion of that repeat 92% is in low risk SIV that are sponsored by banks, which we continue to support them. The exposure is down from off peak in the quarter. Our biggest risk was from four SIVs that were not sponsored by the banks. The ABCP market and its peak was $1.2 trillion has shrunk to just around about $800 billion, many money market funds owned this paper. Of the four positions we had, one was fully paid off, one is approximately two-third paid off, and one we have taken a charge against. The fourth one, we are not unduly concerned about given the credit quality of that SIV. Overall, we feel that our exposure to SIVs we are comfortable with and we are committed to managing these funds folks from safety and liquidity. We bought one significant fees out of the money market fund once materialize.

Guy Moszkowski (Merrill Lynch): Share repurchase declined materially during the quarter because you were experiencing losses and had a capital issue. Do you assume that the share repurchase is suspended for some time?

John Mack: The Board gives us discretion to repurchase shares up to a cap. It is safe to assume for the time being that we will be not exercising discretion to repurchase shares until we have clarification about the general overall climate.

Colm Kelleher: There are going to be some opportunities that will be interesting for us internationally and domestically. We just wanted to see what the best use of that capital is and we get a better feel for that. I do not think it make sense to start repurchasing shares.

Glenn Shorr (UBS): MSCI gain ran through equity. Could you talk about that from accounting perspective?

John Mack: It was a two step process, right on MSCI, and in a two step IPO you do not recognize the gain, it flows through the balance sheet that preserves the tax free nature of the spin off itself. That treatment is pursuant, if you want to be a talking about this Staff Accounting Bulletin 51. Sale of MSCI shares represents the first step in a broader corporate reorganization. After that i.e., the anticipated future tax we spin off any gain associated with the sellers required to be recorded as a capital transaction. The impact is estimated to both of pre and after-tax addition to shareholders'' equity of approximately $230 million. We have options on MSCI as to whether there are other things we can do with that, but that is where we are at the moment plan.

Glenn Shorr (UBS): The $230 million was for the piece recognized, and there is another slug that would eventually run through equity. Is that correct?

John Mack: Correct.

Glenn Shorr (UBS): On the CDS hedges that are backing up the subprime position, can you talk towards counterparty, how you feel about it, and who it is?

John Mack: That rocket of hedges has markets observable on highly tradable instruments with a broad range of counterparties.

Glenn Shorr (UBS): The net of the charges come through about $5.80 if you take that less to 361, you get to 219, and you might take the common reversal and the FAS 159 benefit. Is that the best way to try to come to semi-normalized number?

John Mack: If you got to counterfeit that when go through, you are going to take into account the taxation. You have to look at those. It is after tax, correct.

Glenn Shorr (UBS): Is the book per share up $28.56 free of the capital infusion?

John Mack: It is. The capital infusion does a kick in, for the time being the capital infusion will be a debt instrument at the point of conversion. There is mismatch between the way the rating agencies and your regulatory capital tax.

Glenn Shorr (UBS): Is it fully reflected on slide 4 in terms of the unallocated capital position?

John Mack: They are not. As of November 1st we are showing what slide 4 is. We have a regulatory capital requirement, we are even before the capital infusion in excess of our regulatory capital requirements and the economic capital is an internal model we use for allocating capital for businesses. That was a level of disclosure we gave surplus or deficit.

Prashant Bhatia (Citigroup): Can you explain the accounting impact of the $9 billion versus what the cash impact has been?

John Mack: Of the $9.4 billion, the great focus is unrealized. The $400 million that related to the CMBS was realized.

Prashant Bhatia (Citigroup): The $1.8 billion in exposure that is left, is it fair to say that you want to leave that exposure on until you have the cash flows end up performing on some of these positions?