I do believe that the exiting of these 14 markets does play towards not only reducing our SCB in stress scenarios or as it comes out of stress analysis and tests, but also should play through helping to reduce risk-weighted assets and potentially operational risk as well. But we have to see what the proposal looks like and go through that. And I think what’s important here is that, whenever it comes out, whatever it looks like, as we dissect it and go through it, we’ll figure out how to manage through it, right, whether that be through exiting certain products, seeking price adjustments as it relates to customers, clients and the markets or continuing to optimize RWAs as we have been doing very proactively, we’ll figure out how to manage.
Jane Fraser: And I feel [indiscernible] to jump in here as well because as the spring and the recent test results showed the large US banks are not only in a strong capital position, but we’ve been able to play an important stabilizing role for the system as a whole. It’s a role that we take very seriously. And we certainly hope that as the details of the capital frameworks get unveiled, this is fully taken into consideration, including the impact on US competitiveness. And we need a level playing field with Europe, not a gold-plated one. And we share the concern that higher capital levels will undoubtedly increase the cost of capital for medium and smaller sized enterprises and consumers in particular, and will drive more activity to non-regulated and lesser capitalized players that isn’t in the system’s interest.
And we hope that, that’s fully taken into consideration here because we will take actions on businesses, and we will take pricing actions as well the entire industry.
Steven Chubak: Thanks for that perspective, Jane, very well said. Just one quick follow-up for me. PBWM fee income trends, given the lower partner payments, I mean, clearly, the wealth fee trends were — would suggest that they were quite subdued in the quarter. And I just wanted to understand your outlook over the near to medium term, what drove some of the weakness this quarter? Is it something that you expect will likely persist, especially given some of the market tailwinds that we’ve been seeing would have expected to see a little bit more resiliency in wealth fee income in particular?
Mark Mason: Yes. Look, I think as we mentioned, wealth was down about 5%. It’s really hard to talk about the rebound in wealth in the midst of such an uncertain environment and the one that we’re in. It’s hard to disconnect those macro factors like rates, inflation, the prospect of a recession from what we’re seeing in wealth. And I think there are two dynamics that have played out. One has been the shift from our customers — from customers more broadly into higher-yielding products from out of deposits. And the other has been the fee revenue from an investment management fee point of view, and as you might think about it, it is a higher rate environment. There are opportunities for clients to earn more. And not until there’s greater certainty in the broader macro factors, well, I think we start to see some real momentum tick up there.
Now with that said, a couple of things worth reiterating, which is, we’re seeing very strong referral momentum from the retail banking business up through the wealth continuum, if you will. So we’ve had about 25,000 referrals May year-to-date from our retail branches into our broader wealth business, that’s a good thing. We’ve seen the number of clients that we’ve on-boarded tick up pretty meaningfully, both in the private bank and more broadly across wealth. That’s a good thing. Those are things that position us well for when greater certainty does play out and these clients start to put monies back to work in the broader investment platform and offering that we have.
