Mindy Kohl – Director of Investor Relations Jerald G. Fishman – President and Chief Executive Officer David A. Zinsner – Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer

John Pitzer - Credit Suisse Uche Orji - UBS James Covello - Goldman Sachs Ross Seymore - Deutsche Bank Securities Romit Shah - Barclays Capital David Wu - GC Research Ltd. Terence Whalen - Citi Steven Smigie - Raymond James Craig Ellis - Caris & Company Stacy Rasgon - Sanford Bernstein Sumit Dhanda - B of A Merrill Lynch [Moniche Goyle] – Crest Investment Doug Freedman - Broadpoint Am Tech

Good afternoon. My name is [Gerald] and I will be your conference facilitator. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the Analog Devices fiscal fourth quarter 2009 earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions) Miss Kohl, you may begin your conference.

Thanks Gerald, and good afternoon everyone. This is Mindy Kohl, Director of Investor Relations for Analog Devices. We appreciate you joining us for today’s call. If you haven’t yet seen our fourth quarter and fiscal year 2009 release, you can access it by visiting the Investor Relations section of our website at www.analog.com. This conference call is also being webcast live. From analog.com select Investor Relations and follow the instructions shown next to the microphone icon. A recording of this conference call will be available today within about two hours of this call’s completion and will remain available via telephone playback for one week. This webcast will also be archived at our IR website. Participating in today’s call are Jerry Fishman, President and CEO, and Dave Zinsner, Vice President of Finance and CFO. During the first part of the call, Jerry and Dave will present our fourth quarter and year end results as well as our short term outlook, and then we’ll open it up for questions during the last part of the call. During today’s call we will refer to several non-GAAP financial measures that have been adjusted for one time items in order to provide investors with useful information regarding our results of operations and business trends. We have included reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures in today’s earnings release, which was posted on the IR website. We’ve also updated the schedules on our IR website which include the historical quarterly and annual summary key analysis for continuing operations, as well as historical quarterly and annual information for product revenue from continuing operations by end market and by product type. Next, I’d ask you to please note that the information we’re about to discuss includes forward-looking statements which include risks and uncertainties. The company’s actual results could differ materially from those we will be discussing. Factors that contribute to such differences include but are not limited to those described in the company’s SEC filings, including our most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q. The forward-looking information that is provided by the company in this call represents the company’s outlook as of today, and we do not undertake any obligation to update the forward-looking statements made by us. Subsequent events and developments may cause the company’s outlook to change. Therefore, this conference call will include time sensitive information that may be accurate only as of the date of the live broadcast which is November 23, 2009 With that I’ll turn it over to our CEO, Jerry Fishman. Jerald G. Fishman: Well, thanks, Mindy, and thanks to everybody for joining us on today’s call. As you can see from the earnings announcement we put out earlier today, our fourth quarter was a very strong quarter for ADI. Our revenues increased by about 16% or about $80 million sequentially to $572 million, which was well ahead of the earlier forecast that we communicated to you last quarter. We experienced the strongest sequential growth in automotive and consumer products, but I think most importantly we also began to see very strong growth in our traditional industrial products, which grew 14% sequentially. Communications revenues declined very slightly as a result of inventory rebalancing at some of our largest infrastructure customers. PT revenues which are now a very diminumous part of our business also grew sequentially. Revenues grew sequentially in virtually every product category at ADI in our fourth quarter. Year-over-year and the full year results by end market and product category, as Mindy mentioned earlier, are available on ADI’s Investor Relations website for your review. Importantly, our gross margins for the quarter increased by 220 basis points sequentially to 56.3%, which was also well ahead of our expectations. And that’s despite a sales mix that favored lower margin automotive and consumer products. This increase was primarily due to higher sales and an increase in our industrial business, which provided slightly better factory utilization. Inventories declined to 92 days and are now at historically low levels. Despite much lower inventories, our service levels to our customers remains very good and our lead times continue to be very short for most of our products. Our operating expenses increased approximately 3% or about $6 million sequentially, but were down over 19% from the same period last year, excluding one time items. The sequential increase in Q4 was primarily due to higher variable compensation expense, resulting from the 650 basis point sequential improvement in our operating margins in Q4. All other expenses during the quarter were essentially flat to Q3 levels. As a result of very strong sequential sales gains, coupled with the 220 basis point improvement in gross margins and a 430 basis point improvement in operating expenses, operating margins expanded to 22.5% up from 16% last quarter. Interestingly, for each additional revenue dollar, we drove about approximately $0.62 to operating profit. This really demonstrates the very significant leverage that we’ve built into our model in the past year or two through manufacturing consolidations and corporate wide cost reductions, which is in line with the plan that we communicated to you over the last few quarters. In Q4 earnings per share grew to $0.36, which was up 64% sequentially from Q3. About $0.01 of that increase was the result of a year end tax adjustment. So overall, Q4 was a very successful quarter by most measures, as we executed on our important objective to emerge from this cycle a more focused and a more profitable company. So now I’ll turn the mike over to Dave, who’s going to review the financials in a bit more detail. David A. Zinsner: Thanks Jerry. As Jerry stated, revenues were $572 million, which was a 16% increase from the prior quarter and a 13% decrease from the prior year. Orders increased substantially again this quarter. We closed the fourth quarter with a book to bill that was well above one, resulting in higher backlog. Gross margins were 56.3%, which was more than 100 basis points higher than expectations. This was up from 54.1%, which we reported in the third quarter. As Jerry mentioned this was due to higher sales and an increase in our industrial business, which provided slightly better factory utilization. Inventory on our balance sheet declined by $23 million or 8% this quarter and days of inventory fell to 92 days, which is a recent record for ADI. We increased utilization slightly this quarter. However, demand from our OEM customers and distributors was even stronger, which was the primary driver of the reduction in inventory. Looking ahead to next quarter, we’re expecting utilization for our two internal fabs to increase again modestly to respond to the increased level of demand. Days of inventory will likely remain at a similar level to this quarter. We’ve been able to maintain lead times in line with prior quarters, and feel comfortable that we can operate at these historically low levels of inventory. Distributor inventory increased slightly. However, days of inventory remained relatively flat, an indication that the channel continues to watch inventories closely. As we expected, third quarter 2009 gross margins appear to have represented a trough for this cycle. We believe that gross margins will continue to improve throughout the next several quarters, and expect that we will be above 60% by the end of fiscal 2010. There are several drivers to this gross margin improvement. First, we’re just beginning to realize the savings from our two fab consolidations, which will begin in earnest in fiscal Q1 and continue throughout the year. Second, we should experience a richer product mix in 2010 as a result of the reprioritization of our investments over the past few years. Third, we have had a significant focus on inventory levels during this cycle. And the result? We’ve kept utilization low when sales declined. As our industrial business grows, we’re anticipating utilization will steadily improve, which would drive further gross margin improvement. And lastly, we’re expecting depreciation to gradually decline over the next several years as we keep capital spending at historically low levels, approximately 3% of sales, reflecting higher external wafer purchases, which require less capital spending at ADI. For the fourth quarter, capital expenditures were approximately $16 million, and for the full year they were $56 million. This represented a 64% decline from fiscal 2008. Operating expenses were $193 million, up $6 million or 3% from the prior quarter, but down $46 million or 19% from fourth quarter of the prior year, including one time items. The increase quarter over quarter was almost entirely the result of increased variable compensation expense on a 63% improvement in operating income. We have seen solid results from our initiative to get more leverage from our operating expenses. In fact, the last time we were at similar revenue levels to Q4, which was approximately $575 million in revenue, our operating expenses were more than $75 million higher on an annualized basis. For the first quarter, we expect operating expenses to be approximately flat with the fourth quarter. In subsequent quarters, we’re planning modest sequential increases as revenues increase. Other expenses were approximately $1 million as expected. At this point we’re not expecting a rise in short term rates, which would benefit our non-operating income, so we expect that other expenses will be approximately $1 million next quarter as well. Our annual tax rate was lower than the rate we anticipated at the end of our third quarter, so we trued up our tax rate in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, which had the effect of increasing our EPS by $0.01 per share. Next year we expect our tax rate to be approximately 19% to 20%. Weighted average diluted shares outstanding were 294 million this quarter and we’re expecting weighted average shares for next quarter of about 300 million. Diluted EPS from continuing operations was $0.36, down 27% from $0.49 in the year ago period, but it was up 64% from $0.22 in the immediately prior quarter. Cash flow from operations was $163 million or 29% of sales. And as I mentioned earlier, we had $16 million in capital expenditures, which resulted in free cash flow of $147 million or 26% of revenue. We also paid out $58 million this quarter in dividends. Total cash and investments at the end of fourth quarter were $1.8 billion, up $92 million from $1.7 billion last quarter due to continued strong cash flow from operations and low capital spending. Net cash after debt was approximately $1.4 billion. Our AR balance increased slightly due to the increase in shipments. However, our DSO stayed relatively flat at 48 days and we have no customers that are late to their payment terms. In summary, this was a very solid financial quarter for ADI. Our goal has been to drive more leverage in our model during this cycle and Q4 represented evidence that we are beginning to see the expected expansion of gross and operating margins. Now I’ll turn the call over to Jerry to discuss key end market trends and our short term outlook. Jerald G. Fishman: Thanks Dave. Revenues from our very broad base of industrial customers, which are about 52% of our total revenues in Q4, were up 17% sequentially. And as you might remember, that category is inclusive of automotive and healthcare, both of which grew at very high sequential rates last quarter. External to the automotive and healthcare segments are our clients and industrial revenues which include process control, factory automation instrumentation, grew approximately 14% sequentially. Automotive sales were particularly strong, due in part to automotive stimulus programs, providing a boost to sales in North America and Europe, but also as a result of a much richer automotive product portfolio that we’re now selling at ADI. Revenues from automotive customers increased 37% sequentially in Q4, reaching levels close to their peak, which we experienced in the third quarter of 2008. In Q4, sales of our battery monitoring, brake sensing and automotive MEMs products, all increased significantly. And we had further design activity for our lithium ion battery monitoring solution for hybrid and for electric vehicle systems, with suppliers in North America and Europe and also in China. Revenues from our healthcare customers returned to growth this quarter, much as we had expected, and increased 17% on a sequential basis, although still quite a bit down from the fourth quarter of last year. Overall, designing activity and healthcare customers continues their very rapid pace and we believe we have the opportunity to grow our share in many important areas of this market, particularly in advance imaging systems, where our newest 128 channel, 24 bit converters enable four dimensional views of internal organs. Based on the strength of both the OEM and distribution orders, which has continued into November, and the growth in our backlog, we’re expecting a further increase in industrial sales in the first quarter. In the communications market, sales of optical, networking and wired infrastructure products all increased from the previous quarter. Wireless infrastructure products declined slightly as a result of delayed GSM deployments in developing regions, which resulted in inventory level adjustments by some of our customers. Deployments of the more advanced 3G systems, which enable high speed data services, remained strong in the developed regions as operators continue to upgrade their networks to capture the increased mobile data traffic and our sales to these 3G applications increased slightly in the quarter. For the first quarter of 2010, we expect continued modest sales growth from 3G system upgrades and for sales from GSM applications to remain flat to Q4 levels. Looking forward, our customers expect contracts to be awarded in China for the next phase of 3G deployment in early 2010. And depending on the actual timing of these deployments, these should drive upside revenues in the out quarters. As we’ve mentioned previously, our market position in China is very, very strong and we expect that as those deployments get made they should positively impact our revenues. Revenues from consumer customers were about 25% of our revenues, up 38% sequentially with very strong sales in all major consumer applications. Q4 as you might remember is typically a very strong consumer quarter for ADI, as builds get done ahead of the holiday season. Consumer revenue has now returned to pre-downturn levels with sales increasing for the third consecutive quarter, albeit at a more significant rate in Q4. Contributing to our fourth quarter growth in consumer products were increasing sales of our analog front end products for cameras, HDMI related products and also MEMs based products as well. We expect consumer sales to be down in the first quarter as they typically are, as ordering typically slows following the Christmas build. Looking forward to 2010, we continue to very closely monitor our customer ordering patterns for clearer signals about the prospects for growth for the year. During the fourth quarter of 2009, order rates from end customers accelerated very significantly and grew by approximately 17% sequentially. And as a result, backlog for delivery in the next 90 days grew substantially. Our belief is that this atypically strong growth in Q4 was really the result of three things. First, overall many economies began to improve from the depressed levels of 2009. This is particularly noteworthy in our industrial business, which as I mentioned earlier includes factory automation, process control, and factory instrumentation and scientific instrumentation. In addition, the automotive stimulus programs no doubt provided a boost to sales to automotive customers. Secondly, many customers have now moved out to an inventory accretion mode rather from an inventory depletion mode that they’ve been in over the past year, as they now have become incrementally more positive about their businesses and have worked their inventories down to extremely low levels. Thirdly, ADI is benefiting for what appears to be a very rich new product cycle as a result of having made more focused investments over the past few years. So we expect that our industrial revenues will continue to grow sequentially in Q1 in line with higher manufacturing activity worldwide and our higher opening backlog. For the first quarter we’re expecting automotive and communication sales to be relatively flat compared to the fourth quarter. In addition, we’re planning for consumer sales to decline in Q1, given the large sequential revenue increases in Q4, some of which may not repeat in Q1. And also very typical seasonal patterns for lower consumer sales that we often see in Q1. So as a result, when we add up the growth we’re expecting in all the market segments, we’re planning for revenues in Q1 to be approximately flat to Q4 levels, and up 20% from the same period last year. Our current planning assumption for our 2010 plan is for revenues to increase throughout 2010 beginning in our second quarter. We’re planning for gross margin to [inaudible] again in Q1 as a result of lower infrastructure costs and a much richer mix of industrial sales. Our current plan is for gross margins to increase by an additional 150 to 200 basis points to 58% to 58.5%. We anticipate gross margins to continue to expand throughout 2010 for many of the reasons that Dave mentioned earlier. We’re planning for operating expenses in Q1 to remain relatively flat to Q4 levels, in line with our plan to achieve very high operating leverage going forward. For the balance of this year we’re planning for only modest increases in operating expenses as revenues increase. Given this level of revenues and margin, and our expense plan, our plan is for diluted earnings from continuing operations in Q1 to be approximately $0.36 to $0.37, excluding restructuring charges that we plan to take in Q1 associated with the final closure of our fab in Cambridge. We’re planning for continuing low capital expenditures for 2010 in the range of $60 to $70 million or 3% of sales with depreciation currently running at about 6% of sales. So in summary, overall we’re executing well on our plan to transform ADI’s business model to produce good growth and higher margins. First we continue to realign our investments and our product portfolio to better focus on the most promising and the most sustainable opportunities where ADI’s technology makes a fundamental difference to our customers. Just recently we announced a major reorganization of our design, marketing and selling resources, which we believe will better balance our product or technology centric structure that has made us so successful for decades, with a parallel market facing structure that will make it much easier for customers to gain access to the breadth of ADI’s technology. This structure will provide much greater strategic clarity at ADI and I believe really help us focus our resources on the highest corporate priorities. Secondly, we have fundamentally reduced and we will continue to reduce ADI’s infrastructure costs worldwide. As a result of these and other actions, we believe we’re very well positioned to deliver significant operating leverage as revenues increase, as I think we amply demonstrated in our Q4 when earnings increased over 60% on a 16% revenue increase. In just the past 12 months we’ve consolidated two complex wafer fabs, we’ve reduced inventory levels from 141 days to 92 days, and we’ve kept customer service levels high during the entire process. Our continuing short lead times reduce the risk of double ordering from our customers and our distributors, and I believe provide competitive advantages relative to suppliers whose lead times have extended. And finally, despite all the tremendous challenges during 2009, we’ve continued to invest for the future. This strategy produced a record crop of 300 new products in 2009. We expect many of these innovations to be strong growth drivers for ADI over the coming quarters, as these products help our customers solve extraordinarily difficult signal processing challenges. With Q4 new product sales amongst the highest levels in the history of ADI, many of these recently introduced innovative products have shown excellent revenue momentum right out of the gate. And we should continue to enjoy the benefits of these products in 2010 and beyond. As we’ve said many times in these calls, our long-term success will often be dependent on how we respond to downturns which occur routinely in our business. Last year we presented a strategy for navigating through the downturn which we believe would result in ADI emerging in an even stronger position than we’ve been in before the economy went into a tailspin. Over the past year by maintaining a relentless focus on innovation and executing our strategic priorities, including the aggressive streamlining of our cost structure, we’ve emerged in a very strong competitive position, perhaps the strongest position in our history. During the past few years Analog’s employees around the world have stepped up and embraced these challenges with a great sense of purpose and determination, which we believe will reward investors in the coming years.

Thank you Jerry. During today’s Q&A period please limit yourself to one primary question and one follow on question. We’ll give you another opportunity to ask additional questions as we have time remaining. Operator, we’re now ready for questions from our analyst participants.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from John Pitzer - Credit Suisse. John Pitzer - Credit Suisse: I guess Jerry and David, when you talk about the order rates and the October quarter being up 17% sequentially and backlog growing, I’m kind of wondering why just flat revenue growth in the fiscal first quarter. Is that typically a quarter where you’re dependent upon less turns? Or are you just throwing in some tops down conservatism, just kind of given the volatility in the macro environment? Jerald G. Fishman: Well I think certainly you know we’re always cautious during all these periods where you can’t quite predict the ordering patterns and the revenue patterns as you normally can during a stable market. So you know we are running the company conservatively. We’re setting the expense objective conservatively and the revenue objectives conservatively. Certainly we have the capacity to ship more than flat this quarter, even though our inventory levels have come down quite a bit we have very good coverage on inventory, very short lead times. So if it does turn out that the revenues turn out to be stronger, then we’ll certainly be ready to do it, but we are trying to manage the company relatively conservatively, given all the uncertainty out there in the markets. I mean typically our first quarter is a down sequential quarter mostly because the consumer market goes down and we get less days of sales for our industrial products, which tends to, you know, generally we were down a couple of percent to 5% in the first quarter. So I think with flat sales in Q1 that’s going to be a better quarter than we typically have sequentially. And that’s I think particularly true given the very large increase we had last quarter which you know any time where companies like ADI or any of our competitors puts up a, you know, a mid double digit sequential number you have to be a little cautious for the next quarter. And I think that’s what we’re trying to do. John Pitzer - Credit Suisse: Dave, if my notes are right, I believe you talked about utilization rates being about 45% in the July quarter. They picked up here a little bit. I guess I’m kind of curious, at what utilization level do you start to see lead times stretching out or I guess what’s your ability to keep lead times from not stretching out, given the pick up in end demand? David A. Zinsner: Well I think I said in the actual prepared statement that you know now we’re starting to rethink the model on inventory. And originally we thought we would operate in the 100 to 110 day range. We’ve operated now in the 92 range for a quarter. Lead times have not moved out at all. We’ve been able to service every customer out there. So I think we’re now operating in a different model for inventory whereas you know more in the kind of 90 to 100 days, which makes sense. We’re becoming more of a hybrid between internal and external manufacturing. We have the ability to order wafers relatively quickly from our external foundry. So you know I think that we’re kind of comfortable at this point where the range is. We’ll pick up utilization again next quarter a little bit, just to catch up a little bit since we obviously brought down inventory quite a bit. But you know I don’t imagine it going up too significantly until we start to see industrial continue to grow. John Pitzer - Credit Suisse: But, Dave, I guess, is there utilization level where lead times will stretch out and you’ll have to build inventory and customers will have to build inventory? Or is that no longer applicable just given the flex capacity? David A. Zinsner: I think we’re at, you know, 50% utilization now, give or take. And we have plenty of head room to bring that utilization up. Jerald G. Fishman: Yes, we can respond reasonably rapidly. You know the equipment’s installed, labor for it is leased on the engineering and management level is pretty well fully staffed. So if we decide to, we can ramp that production pretty quickly. Our plan right now is to ramp it slowly as long as we can keep the lead times down. And you know to the extent we sense that lead times are going to extend, we would ramp it more quickly and that wouldn’t take us very long. But our sense is to try to keep inventories low and to keep the lead times low. And you know, so far we’ve been able to do that, even though we got surprised on the upside on the revenues by quite a bit this quarter, we really didn’t run into any shortages of any consequence, and our production people feel pretty good about being able to respond pretty quickly to anything that comes our way in the next couple of quarters.

Your next question comes from Uche Orji – UBS. Uche Orji - UBS: Jerry, let me just follow up a little bit on the lead time comments. You know through this reporting season we haven’t really had many companies admit to having long lead times, it’s always people saying we don’t have long lead times, but the market lead time is higher. Can you give us a sense of you know just in terms of your vantage view of the market, you know, where lead times really are? I know yours are short, but in terms of your ability to take market share as a consequence of long lead times in the industry, just help us quantify the way it [tends]. Jerald G. Fishman: I think, you know, there are a group of competitors out there that I think have and typically do keep their lead times very short and they don’t make [mets] of changes in their production levels. And I think we have other competitors that have really fallen behind on their ability to supply customers. So I think it’s really a mixed bag. And you know I’ll leave it up to each of our competitors to say who they are. But it really is a mixed bag out there. You know for a while the foundries were struggling to keep up, but I think by and large you know the foundries have kept up, at least with our requests from them. And so I don’t expect that there’s huge shortages out there except from a few suppliers in a few markets but not across the board. So I can’t speak for anyone else’s lead times or for any one else’s plans to keep them lower. I can just speak for Analog’s and we’re going to keep them low. Uche Orji – UBS: Well, just as a follow up, can you talk about within your product areas amplifiers, I mean it’s the only product [capacity] rate that did not grow double digits this quarter. Clearly underlying that does that mean the amplifier business that’s restricting growth within that business? Jerald G. Fishman: No. I think it turns out that when you have the most strength in the automotive business and the consumer business, a lot of those, you know, they have a lot of converters and amplifiers built into them, but they’re typically more integrated products where you know they go into the other category, the other Analog category. So I don’t think there’s any real information there. It just turns out that a large part of the strength or the most strength is in automotive and consumer products which aren’t as prevalent as stand alone converters and amplifiers as say the industrial business is. Uche Orji – UBS: And just one last question on the communication and venture correction you mentioned, I know you expect to see some growth picking up next year in the communication infrastructure business. Can you just talk about where you think where would inventory correction [inaudible]? Jerald G. Fishman: Well I think it’s, you know, it’s lasted a couple of quarters and lasted a little bit longer than you know many of us would have believed. You know you might remember that prior to a couple of quarters ago, the year-over-year increases were staggering at the beginning of the, you know, downturn of the cycle. That was the only thing that was keeping most of us running. You know our sense is that there’s another big TDS, CDMA deployment coming up in China. The tenders are out there and you know there’s varying accounts of you know whether that’ll be our first quarter or our second quarter or our third quarter. It’s very, very hard to tell. But I think it will happen this year and when it does happen, you know, we’ll do quite well, as well as with 3G deployments in other locations around Europe and the United States. One of the big variables is, you know, we still sell stuff into the older GSM standards, mostly in the developing countries. And that tends to bounce around a little bit. So I mean this business has always been a up or down business and the only thing we can do is make sure that our share remains strong, which it is; that our content keeps increasing in each of those base stations which it has; and now the, you know, quarter-to-quarter that’s going to be a lumpy business.

Your next question comes from James Covello - Goldman Sachs. James Covello - Goldman Sachs: First question, where do you guys think we are relative to the inventory correction in the industrial segment in particular? In other words, do you think are you still under shipping your customer demand in the industrial segment or do you think we’ve caught up there now? Jerald G. Fishman: Well that’s very, very hard to be definitive on. You know we serve a lot of those customers through our distribution partners and you know the conversations we’ve had with the larger distributors more recently indicates that they don’t think there’s a lot of inventory building going on in the industrial customers. You know they think they’re resetting their inventory models. You know their guess is Q1 is going to be atypically strong as they sort of complete that. But what they’re most optimistic on is that these companies are thinking they’re really going to grow. And you know when you look around in the United States, it’s sort of hard to get enthusiastic about what you see going on in the industrial race in the United States and what’s going on in many U.S. companies. But if you look outside the U.S. and the large industrial customers we have in other locations, they’re doing pretty well and their business continues to grow. And increasingly a larger percentage of our business is now coming outside the U.S. and industrial customers as well as the large base we have inside the United States. So I mean it’s sort of hard to tell, but all we can do is repeat what we’re hearing from the distributors and our largest customers. And they tell us and they seem to be quite confident that they’re not building a lot of inventory, they’re just replenishing it and they’re, you know, probably at least partially if not mostly done with that. But the reason they’re buying product now is because they’re expecting next year to be better than this year. James Covello - Goldman Sachs: Dave, what do you think it would take for you to surpass your previous historical margin levels in this upcoming cycle? David A. Zinsner: Well I think we are going to surpass the previous cycle. We’ve got a number of things, tailwinds in our favor. One the two fab consolidations drive about $65 million of annualized savings. In the first quarter we’ll start to see the first of the savings will probably be somewhere in the kind of $5 to $7 million for the first quarter. So that’s going to be a good tailwind for us. Depreciation is also coming down. I mentioned that capital spending is now lower at the company given our kind of our, you know, half external, half internal kind of model, give or take. So that’s also going to drive some good savings. I talked about the mix. I think Jerry talked about mix as well. We think industrial mix is going to improve over the course of next year. And so those things should all drive good margin improvement. We think we’ll beat the previous peak, which was about 61%, and we feel pretty confident of that fact at the moment. Jerald G. Fishman: And a lot of the things we’ve done on the OpEx side, which is the other really great driver of what margins we ultimately achieve, you know as we had mentioned some of those things creep back in very slowly, but a large part of those things are not going to creep in. And so we’re going to wind up as Dave mentioned at the same revenue levels that we had. Last time we had this revenue level we had fundamentally lower costs and I think the costs of the company are going to continue to remain under very, very tight control, given the margin leverage that we’re seeking. And I think also that we’re learning how to manage the business with less OpEx, and I think that’s going to continue to go on. So I think for both of those reasons in terms of the gross margins and the OpEx line, you know we still think from here we’ve got plenty of leverage left. And when we get all that leverage, we’ll be at higher margins than we were at comparable sales in the last cycle.

Your next question comes from Ross Seymore - Deutsche Bank Securities. Ross Seymore - Deutsche Bank Securities: Jerry, when you talked about the [disti] I believe going from depletion to accretion mode, usually that doesn’t end well. Can you just talk to us about how far along that process they are and maybe give us kind of a historical context? Jerald G. Fishman: I think they’re relatively past that process. I mean what really happened is, you know, the distributors and you know in fact all of the customers just stopped when the business went to hell, the credit markets, you know, didn’t allow people to borrow to buy inventories and so on. And I think if you look at what they’ve been doing, you know, they’ve been trying to get back on the right number of days in the channel. You know Dave mentioned earlier that distributor inventory hasn’t gone up at all in days. And I think that, you know, when you talk to the distributors, you know they basically are very, very tight on what they’re trying to do. You know for a quarter or so we’d see the orders on us be ahead of the orders that the end customers would place on them. But increasingly over the last month or two, you’d see those lines starting to converge. So I think there’s been a catch up in trying to get their inventories up, but I think they’re being incredibly tight compared to what we’ve seen in previous cycles on their inventory management. And if you believe them and, you know, when you look them in the eye, I do believe them, that I don’t think they’re going to go out there and just randomly buy inventory right now. I think the level of discipline everybody has, from the customers to distributors to even us, is much, much greater than it’s ever been. So you know there’s always that risk that you mentioned and for those of us who’ve been around a long time we’ve all seen the phenomena you mention. But you know we watch our distributor turns very, very closely. We hit their inventories every single week and we look at them very closely. And we’re determined not to overstock our distributors. And it’s not really a battle right now because they’re not running ahead any more of what their customers are ordering from them, which is why the turns are staying about constant. Ross Seymore - Deutsche Bank Securities: I guess just so we can quantify it a little bit, how does the days they’re carrying now, I know that they’re flat sequentially as you said, but how does that absolute days level compare to either where they were a year ago or some historical “normal” level? David A. Zinsner: It’s a little bit lower than normal levels. You know I think we’re in a new environment where you know normal levels are a lot lower. Jerald G. Fishman: That’s what we believe, that the divergence between those lines are converging and it might be that the distributors really want to run their businesses at lower levels, and they’re certainly talking like they’d rather do that. And I think that’s a good idea. Ross Seymore - Deutsche Bank Securities: I guess as a follow up question then switching to gross margin and the outlook for it to go up 150 to 200 basis points basically, can you just walk us through the metrics there? Because I would think with mix and utilization being positive, plus you get the first batch of the Limerick cost savings, I would think it could have been at least what you guided to if not potentially a little bit better. So if you could just help quantify those levers, please. David A. Zinsner: Well, it can always be better obviously, but I think the way we’re thinking utilization probably adds another 75 basis points, the fab consolidation probably adds another 75 basis points and then mix, you know, is probably another 50 to 100 basis points.

Your next question comes from Romit Shah - Barclays Capital. Romit Shah - Barclays Capital: It seems like you have the ability to drive gross margins into the mid-60% range, but if you look at companies that are in that range or higher, they don’t seem to be growing as fast. And so my question is Jerry, do you think there’s a correlation there? And if so, you know, how do you think about balancing revenue growth and margins at ADI? Jerald G. Fishman: Well that’s something you know we worry about and look at and think about very, very carefully as we do this thing. You know there’s a lot of ways to get your gross margin up that are very negative to sales growth. You know you can go out and raise all your prices and see what happens, you know, play chicken with the customers. And that tends all the time to have a very deleterious effect on your revenue growth, both in the short term I’d say and the long term. And the other thing you could do is you can get your costs down and increase your gross margins. And you know our fundamental strategy is more the latter than the former. You know we have a higher average selling price for our products than many of our direct competitors and I think we have the opportunity to run much higher margins as a result of that. So you know I’ve always said that we’re not turning away a lot of business at 60% gross margin to try and get the margins up by a point or something. You know any business that comes along that’s credible, you know, we’re in. So I think it’s mostly a question for Analog of cost reduction rather than price increases and that’s what we’re going to do. That’s what we have done over the last year or so and that’s where the focus is going to be. And I think if you follow that leg of the stool, you don’t lose business. In fact there’s an opportunity to get even more business because you can be more price competitive. So we’re not going to push Analog down the rat hole of, you know, let’s take 75% of the revenue that’s above some gross margin and give the rest of it away. I don’t think that’s a good long term strategy for any company and certainly not for Analog. You know we have businesses as you know where we never expected we could get a return on the R&D investment, either at the gross margin or the operating margin level, and those businesses we’ve decreased investment in or gotten out of. But this isn’t a relentless pushing Analog for gross margin at any sales revenue level, it’s to have better than industry average growth at increasing gross margins, and I think we can accomplish both of those things simultaneously by really focusing on the cost part of the equation. Romit Shah - Barclays Capital: Do you think 65% is a realistic gross margin target down the road? Jerald G. Fishman: I think when we get to 60, we’ll have this conversation again. But as Dave said, we have a lot of tailwinds and we’ll see how it goes. I mean we’re putting up a lot of gross margin leverage, you know, the last quarter and we’re going to put up a bunch more this quarter. We’re going to put more up by the balance of the year. Let’s see how we do over the next couple of quarters and we’ll put up a new model when we do.

Your next question comes from David Wu - GC Research Ltd. David Wu - GC Research Ltd.: Just remind us, how big is the automotive business in the fourth quarter? Jerald G. Fishman: In dollars or percentage? David Wu - GC Research Ltd.: Well, either way. David A. Zinsner: Automotive is a little bit north of 10%. David Wu - GC Research Ltd.: And the other thing I was wondering is you’ve been watching the distributors improve their inventory turns but how do you monitor your OEMs and they go through their, do you have hubs with them? And how do you monitor their behavior relative to you know inventory depletion or too much accretion? Some of our wonderful analysts are thinking that accretion may be too much in the very near future but. Jerald G. Fishman: Well I mean all the data that’s out there indicates that the distributor inventories lower last quarter you know than they were the quarter before, so the data out there does not support that contention that we’ve seen. With the large customers, David, all we can really do is, you know, we do sell to some of them through hubs so we can really get to see what’s there. We have very close contact with our largest 200 accounts and when we talk to them we talk a lot about supply. So all we can do is, you know, it’s not a highly quantitative model with the large customers, but we tend to have a reasonably good sense of you know the attitudes of our customers and whether they’re piling up stuff. We have a lot of years of historical sales and inventory data from our large customers, so you know we crank through those numbers pretty hard. And when we get a sense that one of our large customers is building inventory on us, we talk about it quite directly with them. So again it’s not as quantitative as we’d all like, but it’s qualitatively a pretty good indicator. David Wu - GC Research Ltd.: And approximately what percentage of your large customers are on hub at this point? Jerald G. Fishman: I don’t really have that statistic, David. I mean the ones that you know everybody has a hub with I expect we do, but I don’t have that statistic handy.

Your next question comes from Terence Whalen – Citi. Terence Whalen - Citi: Jerry, I think in your concluding remarks you made several points and I was hoping to revisit a couple of these. I think a lot of the questions already have pertained to top line and gross margin. I was hoping to make this question about operating expenses. One of your first points was you said you were making changes that I think overall were intended to improve the customer facing experience. And then your second point pertained to fundamentally reducing infrastructure costs. I wanted to understand maybe two or three points specifically how you can balance those [explicit] goals of really improving the efficacy of your sales and distribution while reducing the cost of that. And the reason I ask the question is because I think as we see good sales growth, I think there might be some investment skepticism around the ability to really reign in the costs. Jerald G. Fishman: Yes. Well, I guess the only way to prove that is to do it. But you know just conceptually the way we’re thinking about it is you know at Analog we’ve grown up as a product company over the years and as a result, you know, we’ve had a lot of different product groups all over the company that basically ran their businesses, did a very good job of doing that, and each of them was a relatively self contained business whose only goal was to grow and make money. You know, the change we made was basically to try to say that we have a business like that, but we don’t need the level of decentralization in those businesses that we’ve had historically. And there are opportunities to get much greater benefit of scale, much greater sharing of technology, much less overhead costs in each of those businesses. And decentralization’s a great thing in terms of getting focused but it’s a terrible thing in terms of cost. So as you create more centralized ways of thinking about even the technology dimension of the company, I think there are great opportunities that we’ve seen and I think there’s more to come in getting the infrastructure costs of the company down. The other part of the mix there of creating these market facing groups is just a way of more efficiently dealing with customers. Again, when you have many, many product groups, you know I think at the peak we probably had 45 or 50 different product groups in the company, and every one of them was out there banging on the customers for their particular application or product. It’s not a very efficient utilization of their time and it’s very inefficient for the customers and for our sales force to have to drag around 47 different product lines to these accounts. I think by a much more centralized look on a tactical basis we just save a lot of time and money in trying to deal with the largest customers. And we also can deal with them with the full breadth of ADI’s technology. You know I’d say lastly, and it might turn out to be of all these things the most important, is that we now can look at each of these market segments and set the priorities across the company rather than looking at 45 or 50 different product groups and try to set the priorities. And you know just in going through the 2010 planning process, you know, when we’re determined to keep the OpEx relatively flat and we have a lot of different people who have a lot of different ideas on what they’d like to do, just the strategic clarity that we can bring to bear on those decisions and the analysis that we can do of what we’re putting in and what we’re getting out of a particular market segment is much, much better, and has given us just a much clearer sense of where the money’s going, what the input/output ratio is in some of the things we’re doing, and therefore what are the investments that we’re going to continue to support, and what are the investments that we’re going to decrease our support in. It just is a much more efficient way of running the company. So I mean those things when you first look at them sound like they kind of balance each other. How can you, you know, drive more sales growth and get the costs down at the same time? But you know that is our job, to get good growth and to get the cost structure of the company down. And I think everybody around the company believes that’s our job and we’re going to do that. And you know there are many skeptics out there about can you do that, but we understand that. But I think if usually the fourth quarter is a proxy for our determination on that, I think you can probably get a sense that we’re serious about that. Terence Whalen – Citi: I think the follow up then is to Dave. Dave, I think in the past you talked about reaching a peak sales level, a prior peak sales level which was I think about $659 to $661 with about $200 to $210 million in OpEx. Now can you validate whether that’s a reasonable modeling window. David A. Zinsner: Well I think the way we’re thinking about it on OpEx as a target is really to target really in kind of the low $30s. Historically when we’re at kind of our higher peak levels of revenue, we’ve really been kind of in the mid-$30s. So we see trying to drive OpEx more into the low $30s as a percent of sales and couple that with a gross margin in the low $60s and I think you get a pretty good number for operating margins, well above kind of prior peaks.

Your next question comes from Steven Smigie - Raymond James. Steven Smigie - Raymond James: I just wanted to follow up a little bit more on the OpEx. Dave, I know you said I think dollar wise you expect only pretty modest increases going forward. Are there any you know short term cost reduction efforts you took during the downturn that have yet to come back into the numbers? David A. Zinsner: Well we’ve taken a lot of actions up until this point to get the number to where it is. We’re always looking to squeeze out efficiencies obviously, but the variable expense that could find its way back into the P&L we think is essentially under our control. In fact most of it is variable comp that’s tied to operating margins improving. So we’re in a situation now where we think the OpEx is in our control and we can kind of manage it effectively going forward really to drive to this kind of target, operating expense as a percent of sales. Jerald G. Fishman: This is Jerry. That continues to pressurize us to keep looking at all the things we’re doing and prioritize. You know what we’re communicating around the company is that the worst thing we could do right now is you know sort of wipe our brows and say you know we’ve survived and everything’s great, and now we’re back to doing it the way we used to do it. And you know we don’t have to make hard choices any more. And the message that, you know, we’re communicating very candidly around the company is you know that process of continuing to see where the investments should go and prioritization and continuing to drive the costs down, those are not one time phenomena that’s caused by, you know, the world falling apart last year. These are things that companies like ADI given the markets we’re in have to do every year. And that’s what our plan is to do. Steven Smigie - Raymond James: And then just as a follow up, just for modeling purposes, would I expect then sequentially over the next few quarters percentage wise to see that keep trending down or could you have maybe one quarter where it pops up a little bit again? Jerald G. Fishman: I mean, we’ll have to see how the revenues go, but our sense is that that should keep trending down as a percentage of sales.

Your next question comes from Craig Ellis - Caris & Company. Craig Ellis - Caris & Company: Dave, as we look at the gap between depreciation and CapEx, how much of that gap goes away as you get the two fabs shut down later this year? David A. Zinsner: The two fabs are actually shut down, so we completed the last shutdown as of the end of this quarter. So as far as depreciation expense next quarter we won’t have the Cambridge depreciation expense, although it was only I think $2 million a quarter. Really what will drive depreciation down further from here really is a function of the fact that we’re just spending less in capital. Now that is a function obviously of having two less fabs than we had a year ago. Jerald G. Fishman: And less capacity. Craig Ellis - Caris & Company: And then as a follow up, just on one of the product areas, looking at power management it popped up, obviously still one of the smaller businesses but in the 28% sequential growth is that all just seasonality? Or are you starting to get some traction on some of the design activity that the company’s been working on to try and grow that business organically? Jerald G. Fishman: I think we are getting some good design traction and there was some seasonality in that number. So I think it’s both, but there’s no doubt we, after a lot of investment, are beginning to get some traction on that business. Craig Ellis - Caris & Company: And in the past year you’ve talked about I think potential design wins in base stations and other, more traditional ADI type applications. Is that where you’re seeing that happen? Jerald G. Fishman: Oh, we’re seeing it happen across a wide spectrum of markets, those being one of them.

Your next question comes from Stacy Rasgon - Sanford Bernstein. Stacy Rasgon - Sanford Bernstein: First just to revisit the OpEx again, so OpEx this quarter was up $5 million. I know before you had about $20 million in temporary savings. So does this imply that all the permanent savings were there, you got $5 million back of the temporary or were there more permanent savings that also happened this quarter? I’d also like to see if you could give me some feeling of what revenue level you’d expect all temporary cuts to actually be back into the operating model. David A. Zinsner: So as I talked about in the prepared comments, the $5 million increase was all as a result of variable comp coming back. So in a sense that was temporary cost savings when operating margins have declined a lot and now that’s phased back in. There’s obviously always some amount of infrastructure related reductions that are phasing into our P&L as well. You know it was in kind of that million-ish kind of range, the $2 million range this quarter. So it wasn’t a lot of savings that flowed back into the P&L in the fourth quarter. As far as when we get back to our kind of peak revenue levels and all our temporary reductions are back in, again I point again to our target. Our target’s to get kind of the low $30s in operating expenses and this obviously as Jerry mentioned requires some rolling up our sleeves, but we feel like we have a good track to get there. Stacy Rasgon - Sanford Bernstein: And for my follow up I’d like to see if we could visit the fab consolidations. So the last time I think you closed a fab was in Sunnyvale a couple of years ago, where you were targeting about $40 million or so in annualized savings. And when that was done you never really actually did seem to see those levels of savings realized in the form of structurally higher gross margins. I’m actually wondering is there anything different from the current fab consolidations versus Sunnyvale? If you could just kind of walk me through maybe where I guess the savings from the last one went and what might be different this time. Jerald G. Fishman: Well, you know, there’s a whole bunch of effects that happen when you close a fab. And you know it turned out right after we closed that fab of course business went down quite a bit. And where you really see the benefits of that is you know when you can load up your other fabs and you get rid of some structural costs. I think the difference is this time we have taken a real large slug of capacity out. These were fabs that had a lot more expense than the Sunnyvale fab which was a relatively low cost fab. And we’re already seeing the benefits of that as you know we’ve come into these consolidations at the right time in the cycle where we’re going to start increasing utilization. So if we didn’t think that we could get all the benefits of these fab closures or many of the benefits, I think we wouldn’t be saying that we think we can get the gross margins up above 60% because there would be no way to do that. So I think our sense of where, as we’ve gone through all the details of the cost savings, how it’s going to play out for the next couple of quarters under the assumption that, you know, the world doesn’t collapse on us, we have a pretty good bead on. And those analyses indicate the kind of gross margins that Dave has been talking about. Stacy Rasgon - Sanford Bernstein: But the Sunnyvale actually wasn’t that small in terms of the cost, right? I mean I think you’d said you were targeting $40 million then. It’s $65 million this time so it’s not that different. Jerald G. Fishman: So I’m not sure what the question is. Stacy Rasgon - Sanford Bernstein: Like you said you thought this time the cost savings were much bigger than Sunnyvale and you were sort of offering that up as one reason along with I suppose the business falling off with Sunnyvale is one reason why those were never realized. But I would think even if the business was falling off, most of that $40 million as far as I know was supposed to be labor related, so I would have expected to see in [inaudible] higher margins even then. Jerald G. Fishman: No, most of the $40 is not labor related. There’s a lot of equipment you take off line, there’s a lot of, you know, generally in a fab about a third of the costs are labor and a third of the costs are overhead and a third of the costs are all the other direct costs of running the fab. So you know everyone should look at it the way they’re comfortable looking at it, but what I would look for is what happens with the gross margins. And if the gross margins go the way that Dave and I have been planning and talking about, then we will have gotten very substantial savings in these fab closures. And if it turns out that they’re not, either something went wrong pretty significantly or you know these are all illusory and you don’t get any savings when you close a fab. My guess is when history is written, and you know the reason that we’re comfortable enough to talk about these kind of levels is you know we’ve gone through a tremendous amount of detailed planning and those are the numbers that come out of this plan. Stacy Rasgon - Sanford Bernstein: So out of the $65 million from these minus then was the $5 million was depreciation and the rest was other stuff, labor and operating expenses. Is that true? David A. Zinsner: No, I think it was about $14 million that was depreciation of $65 million.

Your next question comes from Sumit Dhanda - B of A Merrill Lynch. Sumit Dhanda - B of A Merrill Lynch: I had a couple questions, the consumer business doing particularly well. It’s at a quarterly run rate now that’s not too far from the peak you registered before the downturn started. Can you help us quantify what’s really helping with the consumer MEMs design win, a big driver, and have you maxed out that opportunity or is there more to go there? Jerald G. Fishman: Well it was really a combination of things. You know the more standard, traditional consumer areas in cameras and other connectivity parts of the consumer business did very well. You know we do have some good design wins in the MEMs consumer area that ramped up last quarter. You know we think there’s a lot of potential for that going forward. So I think it’s really a combination of all those things that led to that growth. Sumit Dhanda - B of A Merrill Lynch: And then on the Limerick facility, you know, you mentioned $5 to $7 million in benefits from savings in fiscal Q1 so when you annualize that number that’s $20 to $28 million, so right in line with the $25 million you talked about, Dave. I guess my question is, is there more to come from that facility as you look into fiscal Q2? And if so, does that imply that the benefits from that restructuring are tracking ahead of what you’d initially anticipated? David A. Zinsner: Let me be clear. The $5 million of savings we’ll see in Q1 is really associated with the Limerick consolidation, which is about a $40 million annualized savings. So we’re getting about half a quarter’s worth of savings on the Limerick consolidation in Q1. The Cambridge one just closed at the end of the fiscal year, so it takes a little while to digest the older inventory at the higher cost, so I wouldn’t expect us to see any savings there until the back half of the year. Sumit Dhanda - B of A Merrill Lynch: And that would be the $25 million? David A. Zinsner: That would be the $25 million of annualized savings, yes. Sumit Dhanda - B of A Merrill Lynch: And then the last question I have is for you, Jerry. On the auto business, two straight quarters of very good growth, I think you said 37% in the October quarter, but entering the quarter you hadn’t anticipated a pick up after the strong growth you’d seen in July. You know, do you have any sense of whether this is, I know you’re guiding this business flat, but given that you’re back to a peak run rate do you think we’ve over stretched in terms of the recovery in that business? Or do you think there’s organic growth left to be had in that business into 2010? Jerald G. Fishman: Well I think one of the reasons we’re optimistic about that business in 2010 is the product cycle we’re in in that business. You know we’ve put a fair amount of money in R&D into that. I mentioned some of the product areas in my opening remarks that we’re having great success in. So I think, you know, if we were just thinking of the base line, you know given that you know all the clunker programs have sort of wound down, we’d be more circumspect about the auto business next quarter or two. But our [inaudible] a very rich new product cycle in the auto business, which will counteract what probably were some one time events that went on in the automotive business in the last quarter or two.

Your next question comes from [Moniche Goyle] – Crest Investment. [Moniche Goyle] – Crest Investment: I’m curious about how to think about stock buyback in 2010. Jerald G. Fishman: Well we’ll have to just wait and see. You know we historically have had, you know, fairly aggressive buyback in different programs where we went out and started to accumulate a little more cash and a little more confident. We still don’t have a lot of cash in the U.S. but anyhow we’ll have to wait and see how that goes in conversations with our board. [Moniche Goyle] – Crest Investment: So Jerry just if you can explain, what are the factors and considerations for having a buyback program? Jerald G. Fishman: Well, it has a lot to do with just where our cash is, you know, which is still predominantly overseas, and our expectations about what’s going to happen with the tax regulations relative to that going forward. And also our perspective where the business is headed and what the distribution of the cash we’re going to generate is likely to be for the year. So we review that with the board once a quarter and we’re going to review that with them again this quarter at our board meeting. And then we’ll get a consolidated view of here’s what’s likely to happen and we’ll decide what to do.

Your next question comes from Doug Freedman - Broadpoint Am Tech. Doug Freedman - Broadpoint Am Tech: Is it possible for you guys to remind me when your annual and promotion costs kick in? Jerald G. Fishman: Typically they kick in in our second quarter, but we haven’t decided what we’re doing about that this year yet. Doug Freedman - Broadpoint Am Tech: And then, Jerry, just in a little bit bigger picture looking at you know your fab situation utilization aren’t really that different from others across the analog industry. And we hear from most companies utilization’s 50, 60% level. Now that demand sort of seems to be more normalized, if that’s a fair statement, you know I believe there’s a good risk investors are [audio impairment] about the risk that we see increased [audio impairment] pressure. Can you comment on what you guys are seeing? Why you don’t think, when demand comes back, you don’t see this pressure to take on that mentality of fill the fab? And I’ll have a follow up to that. Jerald G. Fishman: Well I think for us who have been in the high end of the analog business, the real key is that so much of the product portfolio is not directly [copyable] I would say, so you know we didn’t see a lot of pressure on the ASPs when business got poor. And even though most people are [audio impairment] loaded, you know the product [audio impairment] that we compete in with most of the high end analog companies are not those that we primarily compete on price on. So you know we’ve been through a lot of these cycles and we typically on the upside or the downside don’t see a lot of price pressure. You know we of course have prices that are lower on the existing products each year than the year before. That’s very natural, particularly for larger customers. But on the other hand you know our job is to come up with very innovative products where you don’t have a lot of competition and where even though, you know, that our job really is to create solutions for customers that are great value without reducing the price. So I don’t think that’s going to change very much. We don’t see movement on the ASPs very much in aggregate through the company in any of these cycles. Doug Freedman - Broadpoint Am Tech: That leads me into sort of volume pricing agreements that tend to be in the communications end market. We’re sort of at the point and time of year where those volume pricing agreements sort of get set and awards are offered. Any commentary on what type of year-over-year ASP erosion you saw on those? Jerald G. Fishman: Well again, we tend to supply more and more integrated solutions to the customer base you’re talking about so I mean I couldn’t quote you a specific number. I mean when you’re selling the same product as you sold last year, there’s always price pressure, particularly in certain regions of the world. What we’ve got to do is A, we’ve got to continue the innovation thing and secondly, we’ve got to make sure our costs are going down faster than the prices are going down. And that’s what we’ve been doing for many years and I think that’s what we have to continue to do. Doug Freedman - Broadpoint Am Tech: If we look at the coms market, it was really one of the better performing segments throughout the year. Have any of your communications customers given you an idea of what sort of their capital budgets are going to be for 2010, whether we’re going to see follow through and that segment sort of out performing? Jerald G. Fishman: Well, from the conversations that we’ve had with the largest infrastructure customers, you know, in Europe, to some degree in the U.S. and certainly in China, you know I’d say the feedback we get is they’re expecting 2010 to be a good year. You know it’s lumpy quarter-to-quarter, but I think in aggregate they’re enthusiastic about their prospects for the year and that’s the sentiment they’ve communicated to us.

Okay. Well, we appreciate your participation today and look forward to talking with all of you again during our first quarter 2010 conference call, scheduled for February 17, 2010. Thanks very much.

This concludes today’s Analog Devices conference call. You may now disconnect.