Mike Zaremski: Hey. Thanks. Good afternoon, everybody. This first question — thank you for the commentary about the reinsurance renewals and I’ll limit, I need, I’ll need to kind of sit down and think through it on paper a bit more. So I’m asking this comes on the slide. But if I think back to historical guidance you’ve given us on the catastrophe load, I found back in ’18, you kind of talked about 6 points to 7 points. Obviously, over the last few years, it’s been, I think, directionally closer to 10, but it could be a bit off on the math. So kind of I guess, just given what the increased retentions and what way you just kind of discuss, should we become of splitting those two and thinking the new normal with what’s going on in reinsurance is going to cause the catastrophe load to be kind of between the historical guidance and kind of what your last few years have been or just any help there would be great?
Steve Johnston: Sure, Mike. This is Steve again. And I think what we really focus on is the loss ratio points. And what we’ve done really over a decade or more is to model all of our losses. And what we’ve been able to do is to push our accident year ex-cat down over a number of years. And that puts — and then we also have grown our balance sheet significantly. And that puts us in a position, I think, that’s enviable right now as reinsurance rates rise and that we can look at what we think we’re getting in terms of price adequacy on our book, as well as protection of our balance sheet through our CAT program. And so while we don’t give guidance on a cat loss ratio, I think that we do feel that we’re in a good position in terms of the overall in managing both our accident year ex-cat showing 34 years of favorable reserve development and also managing our cat exposure across the company.
Mike Zaremski: Okay. That’s I guess just then in the past, you’ve talked about the combined ratio target low to mid-90s. And also in the past, I’m talking about kind of 95 to 100. Is the — just to be clear, is there is, one like more of a short-term versus a long-term target or has there anything changed given what’s taking place with the insurance costs or maybe higher investment income is an offset to how you think about the mine ratio?
Steve Johnston: You’re right. Nothing has changed. The 95 to 100 is a longer-term target through all cycles in the low to mid-90s is what we’re looking for in the shorter term for 2023.
Mike Zaremski: Okay. Got it. And just maybe sticking — moving to the commercial side of the portfolio. It feels like there’s — on the commercial property side, you’re readjusting exposure and you’ll get in front of that in terms of pushing rate on the commercial property side to get in front of inflationary trends. You said on the commercial umbrella side, though, that things remain elevated, but not as elevated as kind of how you had re-upped your loss picks in previous quarters. Anything you’ve learned kind of over the last three months on the commercial umbrella side piece of the business that has given you insights into maybe kind of the need to just re-shift the portfolio or anything that’s maybe been distinct to CINCI and maybe not just reflective of the overall industry’s social inflationary issues?
