So that’s an indication of the firepower that would be available. We obviously also have equity. There are lots of options, earn-outs, et cetera. So I don’t want to pin down exactly how we will finance the inorganic options other than to highlight that we have 2 very cash-generative businesses, and we can deploy our cash flow, at least in part towards value-enhancing inorganic growth.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from Steven Chubak with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Steven Chubak: So wanted to start off with a question on the C-Corp conversion. Peter, as you noted, prior management was reluctant to convert to a C-Corp, citing a significant potential increase in the tax rate. You noted some upcoming changes in the tax code would result in a more modest increase. I was hoping you could unpack what some of those changes were in the tax code that resulted in a more modest impact? How you determine that the benefits might outweigh the cost here? And what’s the pro forma tax rate for the company following conversion?
Peter Orszag: Sure. I’m going to do part of this and then Mary Ann will do another part. Stepping back here, as I laid out their pros and costs. We view the benefit of this is that it is something that investors and potential investors raise as something that would make the current structure being in a tenement toning Lazard and the conversion being a catalyst behind owning Lazard. So I think that’s the benefit and there may be increased liquidity in our shares to the extent that there’s expanded ownership and increased interest. The cost is primarily — I mean there’s some minor legal and administrative and other changes. But the cost is primarily a change in the effective tax rate. And that cost has come down. The impact on the effective tax rate is now in the low single digits as we move forward into a more normalized environment.
And before I turn it over to Mary Ann for a little bit more detail, what I would also say, in addition to our judgment that the benefits now outweigh the cost, we also hope that this shows that we are increasingly listening to our shareholders. This came up repeatedly in my discussions with them, and also acting decisively to pursue the shareholder value that we’ve articulated we want to achieve over time. But why don’t I turn it over to Mary Ann for any additional comments.
Mary Ann: Sure. So I mean as you can imagine, this stuff is incredibly complicated. So I’ll try to sort of keep it high level. But generally, one of the things that’s changed since we put the structure in place is that the U.S. tax rate has come down. And so if you think about sort of the incremental costs of becoming a U.S. corporation, the U.S. tax rate is one of the factors. Additionally, the sort of global alignment of tax regimes and the global minimum tax that’s going to be coming online in various places over the next couple of years makes that delta even smaller. And so as we looked at that and we did sort of a range of scenario analyses, looking at different earnings mix and levels of pretax earnings over the next few years, we were able to determine that, that estimated range was really in the low single digits. And as Peter said, that’s where we determined that, that was the time to act.
Steven Chubak: And it looks like I have a similar problem to brunt in. I have a load of questions I want to ask to limit it to just one on the comment you made, Peter, regarding milestones or checkpoints that you’re going to offer along the way ahead of the 2030 bogey or targets that you had outlined. I was hoping you can give us some context in terms of what are some of the milestones that you’re hoping to lay out that we can hold management accountable to?
