Mark Fucinato: We haven’t seen any negative migration. We’re looking very carefully at certain situations. We don’t have a lot, but we have a few that we’re watching very carefully. And again, the test is going to be for these customers, we have office, especially in certain locations, is that cash flow going to be there. We have to resize the deal, what will new appraisals have to say when they come in. So I expect that to be at the top of our, kind of our list of things to keep an eye on. We just don’t have a lot of them, but we are focused on the ones that we are examining pretty much regularly every month in terms of what’s going to happen next with them. We’ve got about 10 deals that are maturing over the next year in office, five this year, five next year that we’re watching and staying focused on with those customers.
Nathan Race: Congrats on the great quarter, all the successes over the last 10 years and the 10-year anniversary as well.
Roberto Herencia: Excellent. Thank you, Nate.
Operator: Thank you, Nathan. Your second question comes from the line of Ben Gerlinger from Hovde Group. Ben, your line is now open.
Ben Gerlinger: Congrats on 10 years, it seems like you capped off a decade well this quarter. I was curious now that the Inland deal is closed. Usually, when there’s M&A, it’s symbiotic. Obviously, the bigger bank, i.e., Byline gets a little bit more deposits and branch footprint. And then the smaller bank can sell the bigger balance sheet and lending opportunity, anything also see, so holistic fee revenue generation to legacy clients. So when you think about just the synergistic nature outside of the extension and footprint and this really healthy relationships that come with great deposits. Is there anything else that legacy Byline can get from this? Now that that the deal is closed, I was curious if you could show some ingredients to the special sauce?
Alberto Paracchini: Well, certainly, the opportunity to become more efficient as an organization is one thing to highlight there, Ben. I mean, I think Roberto said it well, if you think about like our trajectory originally 10 years ago to kind of where we are today pro forma for that acquisition. Certainly, I think over time, I think we have shown that we’ve been able to deliver and gain scale, profitably gain scale over the course of those years, taking into account organic growth and obviously, the deals that we’ve done. So we don’t think this transaction would be any different. In terms of what other things, I mean, we have certain capabilities that they did not. So for example, our treasury management suite is a more sophisticated product suite than what they had as a standalone entity.
So certainly, there’ll be some opportunities with customers to improve and do more business with those clients. I’d say, wealth management is also a capability that we have that they did not. So hopefully, there’ll be some opportunities there. Lastly, they – as you know, they had a very successful primary shareholder that has a significant real estate business here in the Chicago area that is broad in terms of their scope of their activities. I think over time, there’ll be opportunities to do some business with them. We’re not really factoring that in. We’re not modeling that in what we’re assuming for the transaction. But certainly, a larger bank, it’s a well-known, very reputable real estate business. So we look forward to being able to do some business with them.
But aside from that, I think you covered the other items pretty well.
Ben Gerlinger: And then kind of just dovetailing off of that. Can you just say the guidance for fees? I understand the expense. So just – I can’t read my own handwriting, I took all those notes.
