Good day and welcome to the Northern Trust Corporation first quarter 2025 earnings conference call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Jennifer Childe, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Northern Trust Corporation's first quarter 2025 earnings conference call. Joining me on our call this morning is Mike O'Grady, our Chairman and CEO; Dave Fox, our Chief Financial Officer; John Landers, our Controller; and Trace Stegeman from our investor relations team. Our first quarter earnings press release and financial trends report are both available on our website at northerntrust.com. Also on our website, you will find our quarterly earnings review presentation, which we will use to guide today's conference call. This April 22nd call is being webcast live on northerntrust.com. The only authorized rebroadcast of this call is the replay that will be made available on our website through May 21st. Northern Trust disclaims any continuing accuracy of the information provided in this call after today. Please refer to our safe harbor statement regarding forward-looking statements on page 12 of the accompanying presentation, which will apply to our commentary on this call. During today's question-and-answer session, please limit your initial query to one question and one related follow-up. This will allow us to move through the queue and enable as many people as possible the opportunity to ask questions as time permits. Thank you again for joining us today. Let me turn the call over to Mike O'Grady. Thank you, Jennifer. Let me join in welcoming you to our first quarter 2025 earnings call. Our first quarter results demonstrate the strength and resilience of our business model. We generated our third consecutive quarter of positive operating leverage, driven by mid-single-digit growth in both trust fees and net interest income, while managing expenses well. EPS, excluding notables, increased 13%, and we generated a return on common equity of 13%, both while boosting capital levels meaningfully and returning $435 million to shareholders. Our results benefited from strong underlying market performance and elevated volatility levels, which drove strong capital markets activity late in the quarter and extended into April. Our performance also reflects continued progress implementing our One Northern Trust strategy, our roadmap for becoming a consistently high-performing company and producing meaningful value for all stakeholders. Let me give you an update on our progress. First, optimized growth. We entered 2025 with good momentum, continuing to embed collaboration between our business units, leveraging the capabilities of the entire firm. We advanced our enterprise-wide growth initiatives, which align with key client needs and opportunities, including alternative investment solutions, family office services, and liquidity solutions. We also concentrated on core initiatives within each of our business units. As it relates to alternatives, fundraising is particularly strong within our Asset Management segment, and we are on track to nearly double our capital raise versus prior year averages. Within Asset Servicing, new business activity in the first quarter was brisk, particularly within private markets, where our technology and operational expertise have been consistent differentiators. During the quarter, we were selected as the global outsourced private capital administration provider for Igneo Infrastructure Partners, a $20 billion alternatives manager specializing in global infrastructure investments. Expanding upon our long-standing relationship with private equity firm Alchemy Partners, we were awarded the asset servicing business for a new $1 billion special opportunities fund launch. Semi-liquid funds and the democratization of private markets globally remain an important area of focus, and we extended our leading market share in the quarter. Northern Trust is currently supporting over half of the approved long-term asset funds, or LTAFs, in the U.K., with an additional 10 in the pipeline. Building upon the strength of our upper-tier wealth business, our Wealth Management segment formally rolled out a dedicated ultra-high net worth segment, which we've named Family Office Solutions, focusing on wealthy individuals and families with more than $100 million in net worth. Already, we've seen very good client traction. Performance in our Global Family Office also continues to be strong. New business activity remained robust, particularly within international markets. During the quarter, we onboarded several marquee relationships in EMEA, strengthening our position as one of the leading administrators of private investment office assets in Europe. As it relates to liquidity, we have seen a healthy increase in deposit levels as a number of clients have taken a risk-off approach, reallocating portfolios and raising cash. In Asset Management, we generated positive liquidity flows in the first quarter, continuing the trend we have seen over the past nine quarters. Beyond liquidity, our suite of actively managed offerings, which skew towards high- quality, low- volatility, and tax-efficient products, tend to perform very well in the current environment, and we are seeing significant client interest. We had $1.7 billion of inflows into our custom tax-optimized SMAs, which are capitalizing on market volatility to deliver increased after-tax value. We are also broadening our ETF platform, having recently filed to launch 11 new fixed-income ETFs later this year. Meaningful progress was also made against our other two strategic pillars: strengthening resiliency and managing risk, and driving productivity. We continue on the multi-year effort to uplift our risk and control system. We transitioned from design to implementation of new capabilities that will better enable us to systematically anticipate, identify, manage, and control risks across all areas of our organization. We also advanced along our technology journey, driving towards a more stable, scalable, safe, and secure environment for our stakeholders. Productivity initiatives for 2025 are well on track, fueling further critical investments in growth. Within the Office of the COO, we're re-engineering our operating model to enhance efficiency, standardize services, and streamline processes. At the same time, we're making continued headway with workforce initiatives and third-party spend, including pursuing further vendor savings. To wrap up, we're off to a solid start to the year. While we face a highly challenging macroeconomic and market backdrop, we enter the current environment well positioned to navigate a wide range of outcomes. Our balance sheet strengths allow us to meet the evolving needs of our clients while pressing ahead with our strategic objectives. With that, I'll turn it over to Dave to review the financials. Dave? Thanks, Mike. Let me join Jennifer and Mike in welcoming you to our first quarter 2025 earnings call. Let's discuss the financial results of the quarter starting on page four. This morning, we reported first quarter net income of $392 million, earnings per share of $1.90, and our return on average common equity was 13%. As Mike mentioned, we delivered our third consecutive quarter of positive total operating leverage. We also reported our fourth consecutive quarter of positive trust fee operating leverage, both excluding notables. Relative to the prior year, currency movements unfavorably impacted our revenue growth by approximately 20 basis points and favorably impacted our expense growth by approximately 50 basis points. Currency movements were immaterial relative to the prior period. As a reminder, year-over-year comparisons reflect one fewer day this year, as last year's first quarter included an extra day in February due to leap year. Trust, investment, and other servicing fees totaled $1.2 billion, a 1% sequential decline, and a 6% increase compared to last year. Net interest income on an FTE basis was $574 million, essentially flat compared to the prior period and up 7% from a year ago. Our assets under custody and administration were up 1% sequentially and up 3% as compared to the prior year. Our assets under management were flat sequentially and up 7% year-over-year. Overall, our credit quality remains very strong. Excluding notable items in all periods, other non-interest income was down 9% sequentially and down 4% over the prior year. Revenue was down sequentially 1% and up 6% on a year-over-year basis. Expenses were up 3% sequentially and up 4.8% over the prior year, and earnings per share decreased 16% sequentially but increased 13% compared to the prior year. Turning to our Asset Servicing results on page five, our Asset Servicing business performed well in the quarter. Transaction volumes were healthy, capital markets activities were up double digits over the prior year, and new business growth continues to be booked at attractive margins. Assets under custody and administration for asset servicing clients were $15.8 trillion at quarter-end, reflecting a 3% year-over-year increase. Asset servicing fees totaled $672 million. Custody and fund administration fees were $453 million, up 4% year-over-year, largely reflecting the impact from strong underlying equity markets and new business generation. Year-over-year comparisons were dampened by the client exits we discussed in the second quarter of last year. Other fees were $48 million, up 7% year-over-year, largely reflecting growth in our Front O ffice Solutions product as well as higher seasonal benefit payments. Assets under management for asset servicing clients were $1.2 trillion, up 7% over the prior year. Investment management fees within Asset Servicing were $153 million, up a strong 9% year-over-year due to favorable markets and new business activities. Now moving to our Wealth Management business on page six. Wealth Management also had a healthy quarter with continued strength in our Global Family Office business. Assets under management for our wealth management clients were $447 billion at quarter-end, up 6% year-over-year. Trust, investment, and other servicing fees for wealth management clients were $542 million, up 8% year-over-year, primarily due to strong equity markets. Moving to page seven and our balance sheet and net interest income trends, our average earning assets were up 3% on a linked quarter basis, fueled by higher deposit levels, which drove an increase in cash held at the Fed and other central banks. The duration of our securities portfolio remained at 1.6 years, and the total balance sheet duration continues to be less than one year. Net interest income on an FTE basis was $574 million, flat with the fourth quarter, and our net interest margin was 1.69%, down two basis points quarter- over- quarter. NII outperformed our expectations largely due to higher-than-expected deposit levels. Average deposits were $116 billion, up 3% compared to fourth quarter levels. Within this, interest-bearing deposits increased by 4% and non-interest-bearing deposits decreased by 3% but remained at 15% of the overall mix. Deposit pricing was largely as expected. Institutional deposit betas remained high, and wealth deposit betas were stable. The quarterly contribution from transactional and other items returned to more normal levels. Turning to our expenses on page eight, non-interest expense was approximately $1.4 billion in the first quarter, up 3% sequentially and 4% as compared to the prior year. Excluding notable items in the prior period, as listed on the slide, expenses in the first quarter were up 4.8% year-over-year, an improvement from the fourth quarter's 5.5% year-over-year increase. Let's go back and review our core expenses from the quarter. Compensation expense was up 8% sequentially, largely reflecting the impact of our seasonal equity incentive grants. Comp expense increased 3% over the prior year, resulting from modest levels of hiring associated with our modernization initiative and underlying growth in the business. Outside services expense increased 7% relative to the prior period, largely due to higher levels of spend associated with our modernization and resiliency initiative, but it was down 3% sequentially as this same spend started to flatten out. Equipment and software expense increased 11% year-over-year, mostly related to higher depreciation and amortization expense and costs associated with our cloud journey. Turning to page nine, our capital levels and regulatory ratios remained strong in the quarter. We continued to operate at levels well above our required regulatory minimums. Our common equity Tier 1 ratio under the standardized approach increased by 50 basis points on a linked quarter basis to 12.9%, driven by capital accretion and a decline in RWA. Our Tier 1 leverage ratio was 8%, down 10 basis points from the prior quarter. At quarter-end, our unrealized pre-tax loss on available- for- sale securities was $527 million, and we returned $435 million to common shareholders in the quarter through cash dividends of $148 million and common stock repurchases of $287 million, reflecting a payout ratio of 116%. Turning to our guidance, starting with expenses, we continue to expect our total operating expense growth to be below 5% for the full year, excluding notable items in both periods. Turning to NII, given our first quarter outperformance coupled with recent deposit growth, we're raising our full year guidance from low single-digit growth to low to mid-single-digit growth. This assumes continued strong deposit levels; stable deposit mix, meaning we wouldn't expect absolute levels of NIB to move materially from current levels, but the percentage of overall mix could change; market-i mplied forward curve as of this week; and relatively stable deposit pricing. With that, operator, please open the line for questions. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Our first question is going to come from Steven Chubak from Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, and thanks so much for taking my questions. Sure. I wanted to start on a question on the deposit beta. Certainly, the NII guidance and the modest upward revision is certainly encouraging. The cumulative beta of 86% so far this easing cycle, it certainly surprised positively, especially relative to the 72% beta we saw during the period of Fed tightening. I was hoping you could speak to what deposit beta assumption is underpinning that guidance, just trying to gauge what sort of deposit betas we can underwrite sustainably if we get four additional cuts consistent with the forward curve. Yeah, our deposit betas remain relatively stable if you look historically, but I would say that it's obviously going to be higher for the institutional business, closer to 100%, and then lower for wealth, 60%-70% roughly. I will also point out, though, that we have spent a lot of time on our deposit pricing. I mentioned this in the last earnings call, in thinking a little bit about tiering and the size of our deposits, where we get our deposits. I think having spent more time doing that, I think it's really benefited the deposit betas on the positive side. That's great. For my follow-up just on the fee outlook and the impact on expenses, just given you're going to have to absorb some of the negative marks related to month and quarter-lag pricing, both in the servicing side as well as in the wealth business. David, it sounds like you were reaffirming the 5% or better expense guide, but wanted to better understand how much flex you have if those fee pressures intensify and we don't necessarily see an inflection or recovery in equity markets over the course of the year. Yeah. Yeah, we are dedicated to keeping that expense growth rate below 5%. I'd point out that at the beginning of the year, as we were doing our planning, we spent a lot of time identifying discretionary and non-discretionary spending. We know exactly what we have to do to flex. I think you also heard me say in the previous call that we're trying to build a more flexible business model that can basically adjust itself as market conditions either get better or get worse, right? We know where we have to do it. We know what our levers are. They're going to be obviously in the consulting side, outside services, technology spend, and then potentially even on incentives as well. We've got a management team, I think, that's really driving towards having strong positive operating leverage through all the cycles. That is why I'm willing to say we're going to obviously stay within that below 5%. Currency creates a bit of a headwind for us. From my perspective, it's neutral in the sense that it helps us on the revenue side and hurts us on the expense side. That is obviously going to be something we have to manage more proactively. At the end of the day, we do not control it. Based on the current exchange rates, we still think we can get to that 5% or below. Very helpful, caller. Thanks so much for taking my questions. Our next caller is Betsy Graseck from Morgan Stanley. Hi, good morning. Morning. Mike, during your prepared remarks, you mentioned that you had some capital markets activity that was pretty hot towards the end of the quarter, and then it bled into April. Could you talk a little bit about what type of capital markets activity you're referring to there, and has it continued into April, meaning now? Thank you. Sure. The level of volatility in the markets obviously has different impacts. One of them is that, in general, it does tend to drive more what we would consider capital markets activity for us, which would be foreign exchange and then also brokerage. In particular, I would say within that is our integrated trading services, where we are essentially the outsourced trading desk for asset manager clients. As they see repositioning happening in their portfolios, that is something that flows through to us. It was a little bit, as I was saying, in the first quarter, and more it is just the momentum that has carried into April here. We will see where it goes from there. Okay, got it. Follow-up question is on the Family Office Solutions, which launched this quarter. Is that right? Did I get that right? You got it right. Okay. Can you talk a little bit about your plans for this new, what should we call it, sleeve offering segment? I mean, you've long had this capability set, but by putting it together in this way, it would be helpful to understand how you see the drivers from here in terms of rebranding within your current client set versus attracting new customers. Is this something that you would be taking beyond the U.S.? Thank you. Sure. You have it right there, Betsy, as to how we're looking at this, which is from a capability perspective, we have family office capabilities as part of our Global Family Office business and have been very successful in serving clients and growing the business on that front. From a segment perspective, the ultra-high net worth segment, so think about $100 million and above, we've also been very successful in serving that segment of clients. What this is about is trying to deliver that capability set of family office services to the ultra-high net worth segment. Right now, for an ultra-high net worth client, for the most part, we're providing a very bespoke service offering to them. They're surrounded. And it's a high level of service for that client base, and yet w e have clients in that segment that are looking to outsource more of those activities to us. It is a broader set, so b eyond what you would think about as far as traditional wealth advisory, trust, fiduciary, banking. They are also looking for a more robust reporting capability. They are looking for outsourced bill payment. They are looking for more of an OCIO-type investment service. It is those capabilities that we are already providing to family offices, just being able to do it on an outsourced basis for ultra-high net worth clients. To your point, this is both the opportunity to improve or enhance the service to existing ultra-high net worth clients, but absolutely an ability for us to grow that base of clients with these services. Thank you. Sure. Our next caller is going to be Ken Usdin from Autonomous Research. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Good morning. Nice to see the little incremental buyback. Just wondering, now even with an even higher CET1 ratio at 12.9%, I know you had previously talked about doing greater than the 78% total capital return you did last year. Can you talk about your comfort with that, or just given the environment and where capital still is going, could you still move that up forward more and get more back to shareholders? Thanks. Yeah. I'll take a crack at that. You know we love our flexibility, and it's hard at a point in time to know exactly where you're going to land. Particularly in uncertain markets, you want to make sure you're there for your clients. It trended up this quarter. There's obviously some room to take it down. I will remind you that we did pay out 116% of earnings, which isn't insignificant, versus the 90% we did in Q1. Our range is 11%-12% on CET1, and that hasn't changed. We do watch our capital levels compared to our peers. We like the higher payout levels. I think going forward of around 100% could be something that we could aim more towards going forward. Thanks. That's great. A follow-up on the expense side. Expenses to trust fees, I'm calculating around 118%, about flat year- over- year. I know you have the long-term goal, 105%-110%. I know there's a direction of travel that you're aspiring for, but given Steven's prior comments about the market headwinds that you're facing, do you expect to see directional improvement there as we move forward? I guess there's a push and pull with, as you already mentioned, trying to get the expense growth rate lower. Just how do we think about that? Thanks. Yeah. There are obviously two components to that ratio. In the trust fee environment right now, given what's happened in the capital markets, it is going to be something that, again, we do not control. What I try to focus people on is organic trust fee growth and organic expenses. Those are the only things that we really have pretty much complete control over. What we try to do is drive those down as much as we possibly can. We have to just confront whatever market environment that we have at the time. There are certain things that are going to sort of we are just going to have to accept them. The more we drive down the organic side and drive up the trust fees, we are going to be in better shape. That is sort of how we think about it. It all ends up being in the expenses to trust fees. Again, that includes all the market gyrations that are in there as well. Clearly, our targets are much lower than where we currently are. Got it. Thank you, Dave. Our next question is going to come from Mike Mayo from Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead. Hi. Just some clarification on your other answer. Family Office Solutions, you have Global Family Office. That is 1/5 of your wealth revenues. Family Office Solutions, what do you imagine as the total addressable market? How much of that of your current family office revenues is that today? What geographies are you targeting? Are you hiring people for that? It seems like you certainly talk a lot about this, especially relative to its size in terms of revenue contribution. If you could just flesh that out a little bit more. Thanks. Sure. As far as the addressable market, the ultra-high net worth market, very large. If you look at just our client base, the number of clients that would fall into this category is in the hundreds, kind of 300-400 existing clients that would fit this profile. I do not have, I will say, a percentage of revenue number for you on that front. It is already a large client base for us. It is just one that we think with the growth in that market and our brand in that market and our capabilities, it is one that we can both grow with the market, but also take share in doing that. To your point on hiring people, absolutely are adding resources to this. It is a different model than what we have had, where in this case here, as I mentioned, it is like an outsourced family office capability. The primary interface for those clients is essentially the quarterback for that relationship. In a family office situation, that person is an employee, if you will, of the family who is directing all that activity. In this case here, that's a Northern Trust employee who is the quarterback or the director of all of those activities. We absolutely have people that do that now, but as we're growing this business, we are adding additional talent to be able to continue to resource the growth there. I would just also add to it, there are also technology capabilities that are a part of this. For the family office business, that's all delivered through a comprehensive technology platform, if you will, where we act as essentially the overall integrator of the various types of technology for a family office. In this case here, to be able to provide that on a more à la carte basis, if you will, for the ultra-high net worth clients, there's some technology build that we're investing in as well. Family Office Solutions, Northern would kind of be the CFO on behalf of the family as opposed to the existing family office. Okay. Got it. You got it. The other question relates to the question about capital. I mean, you have so much CET1, it went up so much more again. You're so far above your minimum. On the one hand, I think a lot of your stakeholders like that. You survived the Great Depression. You're one of two big banks that did not cut the dividend during the global financial crisis. You like that perception of trust and resiliency. I get it. On the other hand, it's hard to know where that line is between having enough for that resiliency and having so much that you have some trapped capital. What are your thoughts about acquisitions or accelerating the buyback? I know that's already come up. What kind of deregulatory benefits could you potentially get under the new regime? Thanks. Sure. Your preamble there, Mike, covered a lot of the things that I would start with as well. All that said, we are in a very good position from a capital perspective. To the extent that we thought there was something inorganic that we could do which would be a good deployment of that capital, we would consider it. I would say at this point that is not a priority on that front. That is why we are in a position to do higher repurchases. As Dave mentioned, in the quarter, we were over 100%. All else equal, as we go forward here, we think that 100% is the right level to think about. To your point, as far as any changes in the capital regime, we'll start with what we think is the necessary amount of capital. We have also talked previously about the importance of being at or above the level of some of our peers. To the extent that it changes within the industry, that changes that constraint, if you will, as well, and gives us even more flexibility to do things like that. All right. Thank you. Sure. Our next question is going to come from Ebrahim Poonawala from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good morning. I just wanted to follow up, I guess, Dave, on the expense front. I think if you go back, when you took over as CFO, we had the sort of leadership changes. You talked about the focus in terms of creating a COO role and the focus on vendor contracts, on just moving business heads to manage some of these things. Just give us a sense of any proof points on what you achieved or seen so far. I know it's early days, but as we think about the expense flex and the operating leverage in the business that may come through over the next year or two, it would help us inform how much we can rely on expense flex. We'd love to hear things that have been achieved in the last sort of six, seven months since these changes occurred. A nd what's the runway here in terms of what inning are we in in terms of identifying productivity opportunities? Thank you. Sure. I think that's a good framework to think about it. Dave mentioned a number of things that we have been doing, and you're asking about the time frames in front of us. On that front, again, we've been very focused on making sure that we have an efficient workforce, and that has produced efficiencies for us in the most recent periods. Of course, we'll continue to do that. There's still more opportunities to look at the way that we're organized, spans of control, location strategy, a number of initiatives across that front that will continue to deliver productivity for us. We're also in the earlier stages of continuing to deploy, I'll say, technology. I say that in the sense of technology that have been available, like machine learning, natural language processing, that we're able to deploy to create efficiencies and productivity. And then i n the earlier stages of generative AI, areas where we're using GitHub, for example, for IT or software development automation, which, again, we're getting, I'll say, very good results on that front, but it's in the very early days of deploying that. We are also looking to deploy more for digitization of all the documentation that we utilize and have to process for our clients. Along those lines, if you think about a lot of the activities in the Asset Servicing business in our operations that relate to workflow management, that's something where we're deploying the technology to continue to automate that much more. To your point of even beyond that, we've talked about the fact that we've reorganized, but that's only part of it when we think about the COO organization that's been set up. It's also a change in our operating model where we're moving towards a more capability-driven operating model. That's where we're taking common services or activities or processes that cut across the company and looking to centralize, standardize, and automate those processes. Thinking about client onboarding, which happens across the company, or portfolio accounting and those capabilities. Also our client platforms or portals, our passports, where we have multiple passports to the extent that we can standardize those across the various businesses, geographies. That creates those longer-term productivity and efficiency opportunities. A number of things that we're doing now, but much more that we can do as we go forward to ensure we're getting consistent productivity. That's good color, Mike. Thanks for talking through that. Maybe one, Dave, heard your guidance on NII. Just remind us in terms of sensitivity to rate cuts, how we should think about that going forward. Rapid rate cuts, is that a negative? How are you just going about managing the balance sheet from an ALCO perspective? Thank you. Yeah. We have, in our model, we've got two or three rate cuts potentially in there. From our perspective, it doesn't really impact it all that much, to be honest with you. The NIM compression really doesn't start until we get much, much lower rates. If you want to think about it, roughly speaking, a 25 basis point rate cut, it translates into less than $1 million a month for us. It isn't something that we anticipate it, but it isn't something that's going to prevent us from hitting our goal. Noted. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is going to come from Glenn Schorr from Evercore. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks. Talk about some of the alternative. Good morning. Good morning. Maybe talk about some of the alternative initiatives you have in motion. Let's talk maybe Asset and Wealth Management first. In terms of delivering a more complete set of solutions, I'm curious what you could tell us and what's in motion in terms of both proprietary and third-party product that you might be onboarding, what signposts we might be looking to see throughout this year. Appreciate it. Sure. Absolutely. Alternative solutions, definitely an important growth initiative for us across the company. To your question, as it relates to Wealth Management, what we're looking to do there, Glenn, is to enhance and expand the opportunity set for our clients. It is a combination of both proprietary but also third-party funds. 50 South Capital is our alternative investment manager within NTAM. On that front, we've been very successful with our wealth clients in raising funds over time, combination of fund-to-funds, but also other types of, I'll say, direct capabilities such as secondaries and co-investments. We look to this year essentially double the fundraising capacity or actual fundraising amount to what we've done in previous years on average. On the other hand, we have our wealth management alternative platform, which has third-party funds on that. That is an area where likewise we are looking to increase the number of funds this year that we offer to our clients and also look to potentially increase the size of the average offering on that front. That does require an investment. When you say what is happening on that front, there is a lot happening to ensure that we do that in a way that gets the right outcomes for our clients, ensuring that we provide the right education around alternatives and how it fits into the portfolio of our clients. Yes, big area of focus for us, both on our own, I will say, and through third parties. Great. Maybe I'll continue the theme and just ask a follow-up on the servicing side. In your prepared remarks, you talked about the semi-liquid funds, important focus, and doing like half, you said, or a little more than half of what's going on in the U.K. U.S. is obviously a huge market for semi-liquids. I'm just curious if that technology backbone that you're having success with in the U.K. is literally the same thing or can be tweaked to go after the U.S. market and if that's a clear plan. I appreciate it. Yeah. To your point, the markets are different. I'll say similar but different. That capability with the LTAFs in the U.K., for example, there is a similar structure, investment vehicle structure in Luxembourg in that market, if you will. As you know, that then is a market where you can distribute across Europe. Likewise, we've had success on that front, and I would say there's activity there. Similarly, Ireland has its own structure. Yes, you need the expertise. Yes, you have the capability. It does require, I'll say, customizing for that marketplace. We have the ability to do that. Within the U.S., again, it's a different approach and structure for that market, but one that we've had growth in the U.S. with private capital and expect to going forward as well. All right. Thank you. Sure. Our next question comes from Gerard Cassidy from RBC. Please go ahead. Morning, Dave. Morning, Mike. Morning. Can you guys share with us, and it might be difficult to do this, but how can you calibrate the fee revenues for asset values versus volumes? If the global asset values were to continue to decline this year, how much can that be offset on your revenues with increased volumes? Yeah. I mean, our AUC is about 50% equities and 30% fixed income. AUM is about 56% equities. We are levered towards the equity markets, right, from that perspective. It is going to be volume and it is going to be mix. Obviously, it is going to be super important there as well. Also keep in mind that within the AUC bucket, a lot of the stuff that we do in Asset Servicing is custody agnostic. We are moving more towards solution-based revenues like Front Office Solutions and Integrated Trading Solutions and things of that nature. Assets under custody are super important, but we have added a ton of extra services around all of that that it is less affected by that volume. Very good. As a follow-up, a broader macro question. There's obviously change coming on the regulatory front. We've seen as recently as Friday an NPR come out from the Fed on the stress capital buffer. Can you guys give us your views on the Basel III endgame, what changes might or what it might mean for Northern Trust? Also there's talk about excluding government securities from the supplementary leverage ratio. If you wrap it all together, how are you guys looking at it and how it might impact the way you run your business going forward? Sure. The regulatory environment and framework is absolutely continuing to change. I mean, Basel III endgame has been out there for some time period, can't quite reach the end game on that front. I would say within that aspect or that regime, it's mostly about operational risk and how that gets treated from a capital perspective. To the extent that it is a more, I'll call it, refined model that relates to your particular operations and the actual risk that you have, that tends to be favorable from our perspective as opposed to more blunt instrument approaches to operational risk, which tend to overweight the level of risk for a lot of the activities that we have. On that front, I would say positive in the most recent developments as to how they're looking at operational risk. To your point on supplemental leverage ratio, again, as a custody bank, we tend to be a valve, if you will, or a flex point for liquidity in the marketplace. We have plenty of capacity on that front right now, but certainly to the extent that something like treasuries receives different treatment as a part of that calculation, it only gives us more capacity. I would say at this point, there is no particular, say, need or relief that would be required for us based on our activities. It would just create more capacity. Very good. Thank you. Sure. Our next caller is going to be David Smith from Truist Securities. Good morning. Can you speak some more about how the current market volatility impacts new business on the one hand and client attrition on the other? Are clients less likely to make big moves in terms of custodian or manager during times like this? Lastly, do these trends look different in Asset Servicing versus wealth right now? Thank you. Sure. Yeah. I do think that market volatility, uncertainty can drive client decision-making. We haven't seen anything, I would say, significant at this point. Frankly, we're still in the first month of this really high level of volatility. We'll see how that plays out, but y eah, it can run counter to decision-making. I would say as to how it might differ on the institutional side, these tend to be longer time periods for decision-making where they tend to be running RFPs over many months. Those tend to continue along because they're, I'll say, more accustomed to changes in the marketplace. On the wealth front, it can cause a pause for people to actually switch over. Frankly, it just builds up the pipelines to the extent that we've made the case to be able to switch the account. As to the timing as to when they want to do it, it just may take a little bit longer to do on that front. Early days on that front, but there certainly can be an impact from volatility. You have seen some nice deceleration in expenses over the past few quarters, but it also does seem like your organic flows backing out market impacts are lagging peers at the same time. What gives you the confidence that you are making all the necessary investments in growth at the same time that you are working to bring expenses down? Yeah. The way you described it is certainly the objective. That is why the productivity pillar of our strategy is critical because it creates that capacity to be able to invest in the growth initiatives that we talked about, c ertainly on the alternatives front, on the family office services front, to be able to do it, but then t here are a number of other growth initiatives that we are looking and are funding to ensure that we can move that organic growth rate up, most of them within Wealth Management and Asset Management. We have talked about some of them, but I also mentioned in some of my opening comments in Asset Management around ETFs where we will be launching a number of new funds later this year on that front. We talked a little bit about tax-managed equity, another area that we're investing not as much in the capability from an investment perspective where we're very strong, but from a technology perspective to be able to do that in an even more scalable way. Yes, continuing to invest to be able to fund organic growth. Thank you. Sure. Our next question is going to come from Jim Mitchell from Seaport Global Securities. Hey, good morning. Maybe just a couple of follow-ups on wealth. In the Family Office Solutions business, obviously some ultra-high net worth clients are moving from the more traditional relationship to a family office. Is that more of an effort to make that relationship stickier, or is there also a material revenue pickup as they convert? Yeah. I would say it's a combination of things. One is to just enhance the service level, if you will. This idea of being able to outsource more gives them a higher level of service. Second, I would say, is it's our ability to win more business. We see a greater demand for that setup where they have an outsourced family office provider, if you will, where they have that quarterback. It enables us to grow. Third, I would say, is around the scalability of what we're doing. Overall, this segment, I would say, is not a terribly scalable offering. It's very high needs. It's very expert-driven in many cases, very bespoke for the clients and what their needs are. Anything we can do to improve the scalability enables us to grow faster and more profitably. To your point as well, we think if we do a great job, we'll continually earn that business and the business will be sticky for us as well. Right. No, that makes sense. Maybe just bigger picture, it's obviously been a place, wealth, generally you've pivoted to try to drive organic growth improvements. You've highlighted a few examples of success across alts, etc. How are you feeling, better, worse, on sort of the organic growth acceleration that you're trying to get? Do you have any intermediate targets on where you can get that organic growth to in wealth? Sure. Yeah. So we feel very good about the initiatives that we have in place and our progress on them. I would say on some of these, they are in the earlier days or earlier stages on that front. The nature of this business is you earn them one by one in many respects. It is different than our institutional business where you have very, very large mandates that can drive a higher growth rate in a shorter period of time. I will also say one of the keys is really being able to execute on our One Northern Trust strategy. What I mean by that is just delivering the entire firm. It is not, I will say, just Wealth Management. It is the entire firm. It is Asset Management; w hen appropriate, also the Asset Servicing and banking capabilities that our wealth clients need. Okay. Thanks for the color. Sure. Our next question is going to come from Vivek Juneja from JPM organ. Hi. Thanks. Just want a clarification on your fees in both servicing and Asset Management. Dave, I heard you say you've added a lot of services. You also mentioned in your release about the lagged effect that you always have from asset values. Obviously, fourth quarter asset values did well. When I look at your servicing and Asset Management fees, both were down linked quarter. Any color on what drove that down and how we should think about it given that Q1 was actually down further? Any thoughts on all this? The way to think about the billing lags is sort of 25% quarterly, 60% monthly, and 15% daily is sort of the way we think about it. Obviously, the quarterly benefit, we'll still see it going into Q2 because March 31st was before Liberation Day. We're still going to see an impact there. Going forward, it obviously will catch up to us unless the markets come back materially. Okay. Then completely different topic, maybe, Mike. Your fee revenues, both servicing and Asset Management, what percentage is non-U.S.? As you think about growth, I know Jason in the past has talked on this call, has talked about wanting to add a lot of growth internationally. What are you thinking as you've done your plans in terms of how much of the growth you expect coming from international in next year or next three years? Anything on that? Sure. Roughly 25%-30% of our revenue is non-U.S. That will vary over time, quarter- to- quarter, but that gives you some idea of the distribution there. I would say from a growth perspective that each of our businesses has a non-U.S. or international growth component to it. The markets can change and the dynamics can change, but there are certain areas where we think there is more of a growth opportunity internationally with the businesses. For example, within the family office business, it will continue to grow in the U.S., but we have been growing at a higher rate outside of the U.S. as well. Some meaningful wins even in the quarter here where we think that opportunity and our capability set continues to offer a higher growth opportunity. In Asset Servicing, as much as we've had good success, for example, in the quarter here with our U.S. asset owner client base, we continue to win in EMEA and in APAC as well. I do not see that mix, I would say, meaningfully changing as we go forward here and it continues to have that type of balance. Just a clarification, though, 25%-30%, Mike, were you referring to fee revenues, I'm presuming? That's total revenue. What would it be for fee revenues? I don't know offhand, so w e'll have to follow up with that, Vivek. Yeah. Dollars still represent about 80% of our trust fees. Okay. Yep. Thanks. Sure. Our next question is going to come from Alex Blostein from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hey, everybody. Thanks for squeezing me in here. Just a couple of follow-ups for me. First, maybe on NII. Understanding that the environment is obviously quite volatile. I think in your forward guidance, you guys are assuming fairly stable deposits. I'm assuming that's to average in Q1, but maybe give us an update on kind of how things stand so far in April, both in terms of the level and the mix, just given all the volatility we've seen so far in the second quarter. Yeah. I mean, deposit levels are hanging in there. Obviously, March 31st was a point in time, but at the end of the day, our clients, I think, have taken a somewhat of a risk-off position in the marketplace, and I think they view Northern as a good place to put their deposits. From our perspective, the deposit levels are driving a little bit, obviously, the guide I've given you going forward, and we do not see them abating, obviously, for the next couple of months. From that perspective, we feel pretty good about that. Right. Okay. That makes sense. In terms of just the mix as well, could you just kind of help us think about what should we be looking out for when thinking about the mix going forward? The risk-off environment does not seem to change the mix rather drastically. It sounds like non-interest- bearing deposits are still kind of hanging in around the same level in terms of percentages. What would change that? A nd what is sort of the client segment that will be most responsible, I guess, for that shift? Yeah. Keep in mind that 50% of our securities reprice in 90 days or less, and over 80% of the book is in U.S. dollars. And then we've got ab out $1 billion of fixed securities that run off each quarter, and then they are being reinvested in fixed and floating. Our duration has gone up a little teeny bit, but we have been taking the opportunity to think a little bit about protecting 2026, if you will, from that perspective. Also keep in mind that about 70% of our deposits are in U.S. dollars, right? There are opportunities for us to do some arbitrage opportunities between those currencies and things of that nature. As I said before, deposit betas are going to remain pretty steady until we get to much lower interest rate levels. That is sort of what is driving the NII outlook. Gotcha. Okay. Just another quick one on expenses. I heard you guys in terms of your prepared remarks and outlook for this year. J ust given the more uncertain macro backdrop and the effect will be delayed on fees that lower markets might have on you guys, could you just remind us the percentage of your expense base that flexes directly with lower asset levels? There are some things like sub-advisory or sub-custody fees and things like that that I think are quite floating. If you look at your expense base more holistically, what percentage of that is sort of truly variable with the fee revenue? Not as much as you might think. Roughly, it's less than 0.5%, right? The general rule of thumb we give you guys is the 10% change in the markets is about a 3% change in trust fees, 2% revenues. Unfortunately, on the way down, we don't get as much benefit from those kind of fees going down. Okay. Great. All right. Thanks so much. Sure. Our next question is going to come from Gerard Cassidy from RBC. Hi guys. Just a quick follow-up. Dave, you guys obviously took a nice gain from your Visa position last year. Could you just update us where it stands now on the balance sheet, what the value is, and what you're thinking of doing with the remaining shares that you may own? On the balance sheet, Gerard, it's at zero. It has not been marked up, if you will. At this point, I would consider it restricted. If Visa does create the opportunity to liquidate an additional portion of that, I think we'll consider it at that point with the same decision-making framework that we did before when we decided to take advantage of that and liquidate half of our position at that time. At this point, do not really have any more visibility into it. Got it. Maybe reword the question. What's the unrealized gain potential, I guess, was the better question. S ince it's carried at zero on the balance sheet. A bout $1.1 billion pre-tax. Great. Okay. Super. Appreciate that. Thank you. Sure. There are no further questions in the queue at this time. I will now turn the conference back over to Jennifer Childe for closing remarks. Thanks, operator. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to speaking with you again in the future. This concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.