Mark Ruggiero: For the most part. I mean we have a couple of other moving elements, but that’s the main driver. Correct.
Laurie Hunsicker: Got it. Okay. And then on your guidance, I just want to make sure that I’m thinking about this the right way. Your full year 2023 non-interest expense guidance expected to be mid to high-single digits relative to 2022. Are you stripping out the $7.1 million of merger charges from your ’22 base? Are you including that in that number?
Mark Ruggiero: I’m stripping that out. So we’re looking at it on an operating basis in terms of expenses.
Laurie Hunsicker: Perfect. And then same thing with the 2023. Are you stripping out CEO search expenses or how do we think about that?
Mark Ruggiero: Those are embedded in that guidance as well. There’s certainly one-time in nature. There’s some transition expenses associated with that, that will be one-time in nature, but we are including that in the expense guidance we’ve provided.
Laurie Hunsicker: Okay. Great. And then last question, and I saved this for last. I don’t want to get choked up, Chris. I’m really going to miss you. Your whole team is obviously amazing. We appreciate how clear and transparent you’ve been with us over the years. Yeah. I just — I think you’re amazing and congratulations, Chris, we’re going to miss you. But I guess the big question that I’m just trying to understand, you are involved in absolutely everything, you sit on so many boards, you are the largest insider holder in terms of stock. And you’re younger than some of the Board members, and the Street absolutely loves you. Why not stay on the board? Can you help us think about that a little bit? And I realize I’m putting you on the spot.
My last question is you’re on this earnings call, but just really want to understand it. You are so well loved, that showed up in your price premium for so many years. And I just want to understand why you’re not staying involved. Thank you.
Chris Oddleifson: Yeah. Well, Laurie. Now you and I go way back. I think you were in the very first analyst I met back in 2003. I went to many of your gatherings at which I met many other fellow CEOs, and you helped me get established and understand what the market is all about. And for that, I’m very appreciative. And I’m also extraordinarily complemented with your question. The — I mean, you’ve seen a lot. You see a lot of banks and to may — ask this question makes me feel very gratified that we’ve done a good job over the years. But to answer your question specifically, I’m taking a page out of my predecessor’s playbook. He was a great CEO, too. He saved the bank. I mean, he — this bank was — we would not be having this conversation today if it wasn’t for Doug Phillipson.
He recapitalized the bank, he brought an amazing set of talent in here, and he really set in place, the momentum and the bones upon which this management team has built the bank over the last 20 years. And one of the things I really appreciated about Doug, is that he was there for me. Any time I needed some clarification or a question, he was more than happy. But in terms of setting sort of a new energy, a direction and sort of amping up and the emphasis that I brought to the table, whether it was in the wealth management space, how to think about ramping up the retail space, home equity, some of the technology stuff, he stayed out of my way. I mean and he was not in the boardroom where directors quite frankly, I think, given his reputation would be looking at him every time I said something and just sort of saying, well, Doug, what do you think about this?
