David Bishop: Got it. And then from a macro perspective, obviously, it remains in a healthy capital position you’ve got in the Prudential cost saves, and let me, from an M&A appetite, just curious taking your pulse there, what’s the appetite for additional M&A from here?
Curt Myers: Yeah. Our M&A strategy would be the same. We do think we’ll have M&A opportunities as we move forward. We’ll see if we would pursue any of those, but we do think it’s an opportunity for us and our strategy is consistent.
David Bishop: From a size perspective, is there a minimum target size of these days not mature (ph)? Well that $20 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion. Just curious how do you think about the size and maybe what markets have the best opportunities, obviously, some exposure in Maryland and Virginia and Delmarva, is that a key infill opportunity?
Curt Myers: Yeah. We definitely want to focus on infill in our existing footprint. We feel we have opportunities in all five of our states. There could be market increases or cost and synergy opportunities depending on where they are. Acquisitions in that $1 billion to $3 billion really add to our organization. They had talent, they add scale and their acquisitions that we can easily integrate, just like we did this past year with Prudential. So that $1 billion to $3 billion is the primary focus. But as we get opportunities above that, we would certainly consider it. .
David Bishop: Great. Thank you for the color.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Manuel Navas of D.A. Davidson & Company. Your line is open.
Manuel Navas: Hey. Good morning.
Curt Myers: Good morning, Manuel.
Manuel Navas: A lot of my questions have been answered. But just in contemplating the PPNR outlook and your growth. Is there — is it more front-end loaded when we look at 2023 and for loan growth? Is that — is there any real difference between the front half of the year and the back half of the year with how you are looking at it beyond just the ranges? Is it — do you kind of have a little bit more uncertainty for the back half of the year? Any kind of color on that thought process with your guidance.
Mark McCollom: Yeah. Couple of things, one is, I mean, we did have a strong fourth quarter in terms of earning asset growth, which did set up the table nicely for first quarter NII. And then also with our loan betas have consistently been in kind of the low to mid-40s versus deposit betas, which have been cumulatively, it looks more like 9% on a total deposit cycle to date. We do expect deposit betas to increase. If we’re going to get to 30% through the cycle beta, you could expect in the back half of the year then that would imply that we would probably have a sequential deposit betas that are in excess of 30% to get back to that cumulative number. So that would — like there was an earlier question about margin, again, we would expect to see our margin if we’re right, and the Fed stopped to raise the rates after the first quarter, we would expect to see our margin peak soon after that.
And then as deposit betas catch up, you would expect to see NII come moderate a little bit more on the half of the year.
Manuel Navas: I think that the deposit betas analysis makes a lot of sense to me. Do you — how do you see it progress in the fourth quarter? I’ve heard some of the increased deposit costs were a little bit stronger maybe in October versus December. Obviously, you’re still keeping the same type of through the cycle of deposit beta assumption. But has there been any shift during the quarter in the aggressiveness of competitors?
