So it’s a myriad of terms and options. And I think we really try to stay balanced for all rate environments, whether it’s – we sit here for longer or we see the Fed cutting rates in the back half of ’24. I think it’s – we don’t want to overreact, and we certainly want to stay balanced, give us options.
Brendan Nosal: Yes. Okay. That makes sense. One more for me before I step back. Just on the participation piece, can you just kind of walk us through what the economics of that are? I mean, you’re moving so much of your production prudently off sheet to manage the overall balance sheet. I’m just kind of wondering what do you guys get for doing that? Is there – I don’t think there’s [gain on that component], but maybe there is. Is it just the servicing piece? And then finally, is there the option to ever bring that back on to your own balance sheet or once it’s gone, it’s gone.
Nick Place: Brendan, this is Nick. Yes. We certainly do earn a servicing fee on that portfolio on average. Every individual participation sale is negotiated individually and depending on the terms of that specific transaction, the servicing fee will be higher or lower. In some cases, that service at a very, very low margin. Sometimes, if it’s a high-yielding asset that we’re selling a participation on or may be able to get a larger servicing fee on that. I don’t know the exact number that we tend to earn on that over the whole portfolio, but it’s probably in the eighth of the percent sort of average area, and we can follow up with specifics. Now your question on bringing that back on balance sheet. I mean they are participation in sales.
I mean, we have relationships with a lot of these banks that we sell participations too. So we don’t have any contractual ability to bring that back onto the balance sheet. But certainly, as loans pay off and the participation also pays off, and we can free that stuff back up – to relend [ph] back up.
Brendan Nosal: Got it. All right. Thanks for the answer, Nick.
Operator: The next question will come from Jeff Rulis with D.A. Davidson. Please go ahead.
Jeff Rulis: Thanks. Good morning. Just a question on the spot rate on the deposit costs. If you have that at the end of the quarter, I guess, relative to the average of 2.66 is question one. And then two, kind of looking at that beta, where do you see that peaking out at over the cycle? Thanks.
Joe Chybowski: Hey, Jeff, this is Joe. Yes, the spot rate on the deposit side was 2.86. On the beta side, I think we’ve been pleased at where the beta is at, at this far in the cycle. I think to compare that to prior cycles is difficult and really ultimately to project where that peaks at. I think we – while we leverage more – the broker deposits obviously contributes to that increasing. But I think when we think about our core deposit base, we feel good about how it’s performed thus far. So it’s difficult to predict, but I think it’s – we’re pleased with how it’s performed thus far.
Jeff Rulis: Safe to say the deposit cost month-to-month kind of mirrored the margin deceleration. Is that – are you seeing the spot at 2.86 is that rate of increase slowing?
Joe Chybowski: Yes. I think as we talked about earlier, just the remixing of the book, I mean, the core deposit growth that translated in the second quarter certainly comes in at levels inside of more wholesale or borrowed overnight level. So that has contributed to the slowing of the month-over-month margin compression.
