Bruce Van Saun: I think – it’s Bruce. I think, by the end of the year, we could see it getting to 10.5% which is a bit above our stated range have been 9.5% to 10%. I think given all the uncertainty that’s out there in the economy plus direction of travel from regulators, that managing it up like that is sensible. Having said that, we’re still generating quite good returns, which gives us the ability to kind of nudge that up from here in terms of the ratio, but also repurchase our stock, which we think is great value at the current pricing. So that’s how we’re looking at it. And then, as we go through 2024 at this point, our early thoughts would be kind of more of the same that we can at least hold that 10.5% and maybe build on it based on what we see from regulators. But we have the wherewithal to be in the market buying our stock on a consistent basis and holding or building that ratio further.
Nathan Stein: Thank you.
Operator: Your next question will come from the line of Gerard Cassidy with RBC. Go ahead.
Gerard Cassidy: Good morning, Bruce. Good morning, John.
Bruce Van Saun: Hi, Gerard.
Gerard Cassidy: Bruce and John, can you guys share with us, obviously, Vice Chair Barr came out with a speech last week talking about RWA increases that will lead to higher capital levels for all banks over $100 billion in assets. Have you guys given some thought on where this could be – where you could be most impacted by the new Basel 3 Endgame that maybe will come out next week. And then second, as part of this, this week Bloomberg reported that there may even be some RWA increases for residential mortgages which really hasn’t been discussed. And how are you guys approaching, what could be coming possibly as soon as next week?
Bruce Van Saun: Let me start up. Quickly flip it to John. But, clearly, I would say there’s mixed views on whether that’s – sound proposal at this point and I think the industry itself – liquidity itself very well through the pandemic, through this period of turmoil in the first half of the year and I think many folks have commented that the industry has strong capital and so in response to three idiosyncratic bank failures, is it appropriate that the thing that needs to be fixed is more capital in the banking system. I don’t know. I question whether that’s appropriate, and we’ll see how it plays out. I think there’ll be lots of dialogue around that. I think from our standpoint, by moving our capital position higher, we’re anticipating any of what could come down the pike is something that we can absorb.
We’re in a very strong position relative to our SCB, which, by the way, we still have some questions about how it landed where it did but nonetheless we’re well above that. And we’re well above if the AOCI filter goes away, we already have sufficient capital to meet our new propose SCB. So we’re in a position of strength, Gerard. I think we can still deliver the kind of returns we aspire to over time as we get through this transition period and hit our medium-term financial targets. But I would kind of at least comment that I’m not sure that that’s the answer when we had a series of management supervisory failures and poor asset liability management. That really was the problem that caused this term off, not a lack of capital in the banking system.
So I’ll get off my soapbox and I’ll pass it over to John.
