And so, there is clearly a connection between the risk ratings and the reserve amounts. But again, that doesn’t mean there won’t be any change. In terms of migrating from general to specific, thus far in our companies like, we’ve only had one specific reserve, which again was the residential loan in California. That was rated a 5. We carried a specific $5.6 million reserve against that asset. Obviously, once it was resolved the realized loss came very close to the specific reserve amount. So, we believe we have classified that appropriately through its life. Again, I think it’s too early to really forecast or give you any further insight certainly as of year-end 2022, we do not believe that there was any other basis for specific reserves on any of the four-rated loans or otherwise.
But again, we will continue to evaluate all the loans, particularly those that are rated four to see if any migration from four to five from general to specific is warranted. But I still think it’s again too early in the quarter to make any general forecast or assessment.
Stephen Laws: Thanks for those comments, Tae-Sik. To touch base on the office exposure, I know one of the three loans I believe was office there two mixed use of the loans that went into non-accrual in Q1. It looks like three of your four largest office loans have a maturity date in Q1. Can you talk about those loans or those discussions? Do you expect repayments or extensions or modifications? Kind of how do you expect those — I guess, it’s loans one, two and four in office exposure?
Bryan Donohoe: Yes. Good question, Stephen. I think we’re working through and we’re in dialogue with those folks. I think similar to what we said at the outset there’s not enough of a data set necessarily to point to with those three loans. They each have different profiles in terms of where they’re at in their business plan and some of the normal discussions you’d expect to occur are ongoing. And I think it will be a bit dynamic, but things that we’re working through in normal course at this point.
Stephen Laws: Okay, great. Thanks Bryan.
Bryan Donohoe: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The next question today comes from the line of Eric Hagen from BTIG. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Eric Hagen: Hey. Thanks. Good afternoon. I hope you guys are well. In the downgraded loans, where you’re seeing, I think you noted a deterioration in the business plan. Can you get more specific on what you’re seeing there? Like how much of an additional funding component is associated with those loans and how the weaker business plan in general just kind of affects the debt yield or the value of the asset in general? And then how are you guys thinking about hedging interest rate risk from this point forward? Like what are some of the variables that you’re looking at to either maybe put on some more hedges or potentially widen up in that department? Thanks.
Bryan Donohoe: Good question. I’ll start on the business plan and then share the mic with Tae-Sik a little bit with respect to your latter question. Eric, thank you. Yes, I think as I said in the opening remarks, right, we’re in the just the headwinds in certain sectors office, obviously, being the point of the spirit to a degree. And so what that means is either renovation or value-add component of the business plan is taking longer and then in certain instances throughout our broad industry function of supply chain issues and increased costs associated with those renovations. As you know, in general, our industry would have completion guarantees things like that associated with those business plans. But they are at times taking longer.
